Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:42, 16 February 2012

A Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your scrutiny, diligence and commitment to fairness and accuracy in the Robert Irvine and Dinner: Impossible articles. Thanks! -|Godofbiscuits| 21:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		I don't know if you care much for barnstars, but you definitely deserve this one. You are very wise in cleaning up articles, removing the unnecessary material or even vandalism, sometimes. Good job for helping Misplaced Pages. --DragonofFire (龙火) 00:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you for helping out in TV-related articles, particularly Burn Notice, In Plain Sight, and White Collar. I've been working on these articles for months, but they wouldn't be anywhere close to where they are today without your help. Thanks! Kevinbrogers (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Drmargi, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Spellcast 03:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, Spellcast.

More London

(re Spooks) - it's a new development apparently! Hope you don't mind that I have stuck it back in, as the whole line is fact-tagged anyway so it may as well just stand in line for verification. Cheers DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 09:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup all sounds good to me thanks, including the loss of "particularly"! And I am very envious of your having seen the Bond exhibition ... Best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Episode summaries

I see your name a lot when editing the pages for series and shows so I figured you might be able to answer my question. Is there a correct way to do an episode summary? I just started doing a few this week and I figured I would just watch the show and then write about what happened. I wasn't sure if this could be considered original research or not (I figured no since the show would be the source), but I thought I would ask and see if there is a preferred way. Also any guidelines for length and can they be spoilers for the episode? A lot of the stubby descriptions are very vague and don't actually say what happens, rather they hint at things. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In my defense, I only wrote the one, long summary for In Plain Sight, I don't know who wrote the others. I was using the summary for Episode 1 of Criminal Intent that I saw the other day as a guide since the user who created the whole season page wrote it and I figured that that must be the way it is done (I wrote the ep 3 recap). Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok great. I'm definitely a fan of at least 3 sentences and some actual details about what happened. I am behind in The Mentalist and tried to look at the summaries to see where I was and had a hard time trying to figure out if I had seen them or not. They were very vague and hinted at things without saying what happened so it was very difficult. So since you approve of my edited summary, I'll try to make them more like it from now on. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Next Food Network Star

You are right about Debbie, Melissa, & Jeffrey being treated equally. Debbie should have IN and not HIGH. Snackshack100 (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Reinstating the Updates for Kitchen Nightmares

Hi, I am in the midst of gathering everyone to give their comments on reinstating the updates for Kitchen Nightmares. I would appreciate if you come and give your comments on whether to keep or remove the updates here: Talk:Kitchen_Nightmares#Reinstating_the_Updates Roman888 (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

FlashForward question

Hi - I left a note on the FlashForward talk page, asking you to explain why you removed some external links from FlashForward. I pointed out that (in my view) these links do not violate the WP:ELNO you cite, and provided one obvious example of this non-violation. I'd like to discuss this. PaulLev (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible Bond actors

Could you give a citation for this, please? I know much of the rest is unsourced, but we can change that. Fences&Windows 19:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I noticed you reverted my edit to the FlashForward article, and I just have one question, what's the point of having the Wikia template if no one's going to use it?

Americanfreedom (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Howdy!

Another incident on the night we were editing was my very first userpage vandalization! I feel like I'm a real Wikipedian now, after laying down the law with some ingratiating little twatwaffle from Australia (IP lookup tool), who kept making the same exact but inconsistent reverts to the Project Runway page. Then he blanked out my awards and PR sections on my page, so Jusdafax and I gave him double warnings. 'Twas good times. Since then, I joined WikiProject Films and have been busy maintaining several pages, including creating a well-sourced article for James Franco's "Howl", which took a lot of work and I feel quite tremendously proud of ^_^.

So, as for Top Chef, I know that we're blessed with several immense talents this season, but am I the only one vehemently bored by their lacks of personalities (save for Ash, who I only wish had the skills to compensate and he'd surely be the fan favorite) and aggravated by the general obnoxious manner most of the chefs operate with? Ironically, I like Mike, though I hated him Episode 1 for being such a misogynist. But his flirtation and ignored bromance with Ash was kinda cute. And at least he's got a personality. Jennifer is easily my favorite though, and Kevin's my second--although I am seriously hoping he loses, because I am just tired of seeing female chefs disintegrate the way they do here. S5 had such a great cast of females and they wasted it with seriously misguided eliminations (Leah shoulda went over Ariane and the whole season would've played out differently). I'll save any further comments I have for later. Your thoughts?--Cinemaniac86 04:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, the noggin is better, but have you ever went to sleep feeling great, just to awake the next morning (too early, as you can tell) with sharp pains on one side of your neck/respective shoulder blade? I cannot wait for Christmas--I want my Tempurpedic mattress NOW!

But woot for us being on the same page. Also, I aim to be more frequent with replies, sorry about that. First off, mmmm, Gli Voltaggii. I love the Italian language. It was one of my favorite classes in high school--I dropped French, in fact, when they introduced it to the curriculum before my Junior year. I love French as well, but I excel more at Italian--aced it nicely. My only regret is that I took time off from college to work on my writing (my current life status), so I need to make use of my OnLingo CDs and brush up. (That was the reason for my delay, haha. I wanted to impress with some Italian dialogue, but I'll postpone that as I'd rather be a more conscientious converser =).) Random: I love any noun with which I can utilize the "Lo" pronoun. Lo spaglio!

So, from God complexes and enormous egos, to curriculum documents and type-A personalities....Are you, perhaps, a college professor or school principal of some kind? The former, or perhaps the latter as well, might suggest that you are indeed a doctor of something! Whatever your profession, that does sound quite hellish. My guess is it might be a more elitist school, but then again, before I went to my liberal Catholic school full of hippie/gay/combo teachers, my podunk suburban ghetto public school was full of obnoxious cretins both on the staff and attending classes as well.

As you can tell, I am a loquacious lil bugger, devoid of the ability to condense. I chalk it up to my writer mentality. It's a wonder the episode summaries I've written were truncated at all :P.

Back to TC, of course. I am so glad that you feel as unenthusiastic about this season as I do--mostly because my main friend whom I chat about it with loves it because it seems like there are impeccable chefs. But to me, their flawlessness is utterly boring. I *loved* Seasons 4 and 3 (4 the most), because all of the chefs had real personalities and were capable of sucking from time to time. It's not like Project Runway, where you can judge them on their work. We need the fallibility of the chefs, to watch them stumble and rise. S4 had the best cast ever, imo. I enjoyed the actual, unmanufactured drama; and of course, the femdom.

This season, yeah, Jennifer and Kevin are the only ones I really like now, with Jennifer being the one I'm rooting for. Despite my fear that she'll be another female runner-up, She received a rather hefty possible winner's edit right off the bat, so she's definitely a contender I think. Oftentimes, the one we expect to win falters at the end, so I hope Kevin pulls a Stefan (or for some, a Richard). As for Gli Voltaggii, I waver constantly. On one hand, they're both kind of hot; on the other, one is a douche nozzle who seems to manipulate people by insulting them, instigating their anger, then scolding them for getting heated when he's "just trying to help" (although, he'd be AMAZING on Survivor) and the other is just a giant bore. Mike doesn't bother me much anymore, oddly enough, but the animosity towards Robin is tiring. And yeah, Eli. I look forward to his departure and I hope it's ASAP.

What other TV shows (particularly scripted) do you follow? And are you into films much?

Thanks to the painkillers, I pretty much typed out everything on my mind. Oy vey. Well, I hope this doesn't overwhelm you from replying! I'll leave it at this novella-state for now. Talk to you soon. Oh, and fyi, my name is James. You're probably the first on Wiki to know that. Whoa.--Cinemaniac_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 08:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Aw, I still liked him better than some. But yeah, whatever. I've pretty much washed my hands of this season. It's official: Season 6 of ANYTHING sucks sloth balls. I don't even think I'll continue watching episodes until the Finale. And I'll only watch the final cook-off IF Jennifer is there; otherwise, this show can suck it. Bring on Season 7 already, 'cause 6 is already dead to me. Phooey!

On a more positive note, I'm gathering that you are also a fan of the fantastically underrated Southland? =) If I didn't have to finish last week's Survivor before this week's comes on, I'd ramble on about how much I'm loving it. But I'll let you speak first.--Cinemaniac_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 00:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

General editing notes

To be honest, I have to agree with this edit by Rosie. The article lead is supposed to summarise the article, not be in addition to what is included elsewhere. Including the number of episodes, with an "as of" date for clarification does exactly that so it seems appropriate. That it may have to be updated periodically, as you indicated here, really isn't much of an issue in the many lists where the summary is included. I also find myself agreeing with this edit. "N/A" can mislead the reader into believing that a DVD won't be released at all, while "TBA" is more neutral in that it only indicates that the information is not yet available and will be included when, and if, it is available in the future. While I tend to use TBA muyself, many editors believe that simply leaving the field empty is more than sufficient. I haven't reverted your reversions of Rosie's edits as she has previously taken such reversions as validation of her edits, and I don't want her to get the impression that she is right in all she does.

Regarding this edit, I assume you meant WP:OVERLINK, not Misplaced Pages:Overlistification. While Misplaced Pages:Linking#Repeated links does indeed state "In general, link only the first occurrence of an item", it goes on to say, "This is a rule of thumb that has many exceptions, including....tables, in which each row should be able to stand on its own." Each episode entry is seen as a row in a table, so linking the same field data in different entries is appropriate, although it can be messy. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about the N/A v. TBA. It could be we use the two abbreviations differently than in OZ, but they're more or less parallel and use of one v. the other is a matter of taste. Stylistically, I prefer the dimmed box, I must say. Regardless, I'm not married to one versus the other, but continue to revert for edit summary reasons, until Rosie gets the point. As for the episode count sentence, it still strikes me as redundant, especially for shows where there are very few episodes and a small table. I think we differ here on matters of taste and what is important versus redundant information.

I do appreciate the heads-up on the gaffe re: overlinking v. overlisting! Thank you for that. Drmargi (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Guy who had his foot run over with a lawn mower as an entry in the list of supporting characters

Longest subject header ever.... anyway, yeah let's report the 3rr violation, how do we do that? I have not done that before. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads-up: Left you an acerbic reply on the above user's talk page. If you're Don and Dbrodbeck is Bert, I must be Roger in this Mad Men task force.--Cinemaniac_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 09:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I like to think of us more like The Unit, can I be Jonas Blaine? Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Too much testosterone for me, boys! Drmargi (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of FlashForward (season 1)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is FlashForward (season 1). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/FlashForward (season 1). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know your feelings about the result of this AfD but I think that the close was premature with an inappropriate result. The consensus was clearly to merge to the main episode list but the closer, who wasn't an admin, decided to merge everythng to the main article. The AfD was also closed after less than 11 hours while Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion#How an AfD discussion is closed says that AfDs run for seven days. I don't follow this program so I'm not going to take it to DRV. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I too thought the rough consensus was to merge into the episode list, not main article. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this all landed on my talk page other than that I was the last to respond before the premature closing of the discussion and that Aussie and I have been chatting on another subject. I suppose what will have to happen now is that someone who cares to can pursue it beyond this point, although frankly, as badly as the show's ratings have begun to fall, I'm not sure it's going to be around all that long anyway. I left a little note on the originating editor's (Magioladitis) page so he/she can come take a look. Drmargi (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Your talk page was in my watchlist from our prior communication. That is how I found out about the deletion debate and how saw that someone else felt the same way I did. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That clears that up. It don't mind the discussion; I'm actually rather enjoying it. I was just afraid someone thought I'd started the whole thing and would expect some action on my part. I think we all agree that the editor in question overstepped in closing the AfD so early. But given how quickly I'm losing interest in the show, and that I know next to nothing about a DRV, I wanted to be sure everyone knew I wasn't planning to make the next move. Drmargi (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

FlashForward

Understanding that the show has been put on hiatus, this means that there will by no more episodes until the hiatus expires? Also, aer there any references/do you think there is going to be a season 2? Thanks & happy editing! I know this has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages, but still =D

Netalarmtalk 05:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers in List of Castle episodes

Hi there. I see that you recently restored one of my edits here 1, agreeing with my original edit to keep spoilers on the page. I am rather new here and was curious about the "mass disclosure policy" that was mentioned. I didn't find anything about it but I'm always trying to learn to avoid any problems in the future. Can you direct me somewhere to read about this? Thanks! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Number of episodes

The guideline for Template:Infobox television reads:

"The number of episodes produced (a reliable source is required if greater than the number aired)."

There are multiple reliable sources about the fact that 13 episodes have been completed for Southland. Even if they never air, they exist; which is the reason we list episodes produced when known to be greater than episodes aired. —MJBurrage 19:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

1989 Rosie/Coral Bay

Just to let you know, I have opened and SPI case at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/1989 Rosie in case you wish to comment. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

TV Ratings question

Hi Drmargi. I wanted to ask you a question about TV ratings because I value your opinion. I have seen your discussions in various talk pages regarding ratings data, and we seem to often edit the same pages.

I recently "fixed" the viewership numbers for List of Trauma episodes. (There were a number of refs which did not even include the data (show wasn't even mentioned on the page cited!!), then there were some "fast-nationals" mixed in with "finals".) Now I am wondering about this "fix". I personally prefer the daily finals numbers, rather than fast nationals, so my initial response was to "fix". Recently, though, I have found some pages pages which specifically cite the fast-nationals instead (e.g. List of Castle episodes).

I have no idea what you "prefer," but I did notice you were a contributor at the List of Trauma episodes page, so feel free to revert my "fix". As a newbie to that page, I did not, in any way, mean to step on anyone's toes or create a war. My main feeling is to make sure we compare apples with apples, at least. As I have wandered around the TV list pages, I have realized that some pages do things differently and I want to try to "go with the flow". I hope my rambling is making sense, and sorry again, for butting in with my "fix". --Logical Fuzz (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad I did not offend you, especially after I recently said that Rosie/CB edits like a bull in a china shop. I was feeling bad about it. Regarding the Live +7 day data, I agree that it is useful, especially in this world of DVRs. I rarely see it though. Funny you mention the averaging of fast nationals. That drives me nuts, too! I recently got in-between a war that CB/Rosie was having with someone else about just that. Sometimes I think people just feel the need to be first to post data, and don't even look at it carefully. Grrr, enough venting. Anyway, I'm glad you were OK with my edit on the Trauma page. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ratings organization

I'm looking for an opinion on how to further improve the ratings table for The Mentalist as seen here. I made a source column since the info for 4 of the columns come from the same source, but the rank has a different source each week. Do you think I should just leave it the way it is an give each rank its own source or should i put a ref number next to each number in the table? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't make the table in the first place, I just saw that it needed some help and tracked down a few missing numbers. The suggestions you made make sense and to be honest, I have no idea what the ratings, share, etc mean. I plan on moving the tables to the episode page at some point which will allow me to remove the viewers column from the plot summary area. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Southland episodes

I thought I'd let you know that I've tagged List of Southland episodes as a copyvio. Theleftorium 15:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'd finally given up on trying to stop the constant copyvios, since the show wasn't all that interesting to me. I did fix the blinding background colors in the table. BTW, I see your from Sweden. If you speak any German, it's useful to duplicate your comments to Coral Bay in that language, since she's not an English speaker, and has very poor English reading skills. Drmargi (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my German is very rusty. I do know a guy who speaks it though. If Coral Bay continues I'll ask him to translate. Thanks for letting me know. :) Theleftorium 16:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Rusty is better than I can manage. I tend to alert anyone closer to Germany than New York City of the language issue in the hope we can eventually get through to Rosie (as Coral Bay used to be known.) She's got quite a history, including a lifetime ban from the German Misplaced Pages. Don't look for a lot of well-crafted edit summaries. Drmargi (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey again. I noticed List of Castle episodes is full of copyvios. You don't happen to know who added them? Regards, Theleftorium 19:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't, no. It's a constant issue. Rather than tagging it, let's get rid of them. --Drmargi (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm removed everything I could find. The rest seems fine. Theleftorium 20:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well done, you! What an undertaking! --Drmargi (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Back again

Hi there - FYI as you got a mention on my talk page :) User talk:Mkativerata#DrMargi. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

My, but he never gives up, does he? Drmargi (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I must say I am impressed with his persistence! --Mkativerata (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I once asked him, during one of his extended attempts to baffle us with verbiage he'd used over and over, if he knew the definition of insanity. Clearly, he doesn't. Drmargi (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Top Gear episodes

Hi there, I noticed we've both been doing clean up on the List of Top Gear episodes article to get rid of the rumors people keep adding about series 15. My Misplaced Pages knowledge isn't that great but does the level of abuse by IP users warrant asking for a semi-protection lock on the page? Is that the right move? I've been editing the talk pages of the offending users warning them to not add unsourced information but that hasn't seemed to help. The same kind of thing happened back before series 14 but the people were not nearly as persistent. I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on the issue. Thanks, OracleGuy01 (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's not go for the hand grenade approach just yet. It's one IP that's making the vast majority of edits. Why don't we try a note in his/her user page and a comment regarding sources on the TG page first? Drmargi (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright. I've added a note on their talk page, hopefully it will help. OracleGuy01 (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Fingers crossed. And if it doesn't, you've done your due diligence and can justify lowering the boom. Drmargi (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Southland

Understandable enough, but removing the casting information about Amaury Nolasco and Clifton Collins was unnecessary. I would say I've arguably done the most updating to that page since the second season began and almost all of it (excluding perhaps the part you referenced) was factual, sourced and/or provided relevant information about the show. I'm not in the business of getting into Misplaced Pages wars so I'll leave your edits as they are. Pipedreamz 19:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the casting stuff I removed was that it was only a few words different than the original press release, and thereby a copyright violation. How much editing you've done has no bearing, and a comment like yours will be viewed by some as ownership of the article. That it's factual and sourced doesn't necessarily make an edit notable, and I felt that, aside from the larger copyright violation, that undue attention was given to the casting change. It certainly could be re-added in a more concise form. Drmargi (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The Futon Critic Estimates...

Actually, the Futon Critic does provide estimated dates, and refer to them as projected dates. Right now for "In Plain Sight", those dates are in July for the 7th, 14th, 21st & 28th. The editor that provided those TBA dates didn't provide the July dates, but rather only provided the confirmed dates of June 2nd, 9th, 16th and 23rd, which are marked "N/A" because (as I'm sure you know) the title is not yet available. But they know that an episode will air on that date. I've yet to see any deviation from this pattern (changes to schedules like this invariably happen to the projected dates), which is why I backed this editor up with the cite. Especially for a cable show like on FX or USA, which doesn't repeat shows throught the "season" but rather throughout the week, running episodes straight through to the end, unless they bow out early and show the last few episodes later, like in the winter (like maybe those last four projected episdodes not yet officially on the schedule?) If you look at the Futon Critic schedule, you'll even note the lack of June 30th. No show scheduled. They know that now. The same thing happened with "White Collar" and their winter return, which showed a gap on Feb 16 as early as December (turned out to be the Westminister dog show. They knew.) The use of these "N/A" dates is a standard practice for a great number of editors on a great number of pages, even for network shows who do fall victim to repeats, Presidential addresses and hurricane relief telethons. How can it not be acceptable here, where the schedule only exsists to interrupt their constant run of Bourne Identity movies and NCIS reruns? They know. KnownAlias contact 14:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure commenting out a few lines on a table that are largely empty merits a lecture on the practices of Futon Critic of which I am already aware. Futon Critic is notoriously inaccurate this far out; that they don't have episode titles to accompany their dates suggests whatever you contend (so emphatically) that they know is in actuality them estimating/projecting (a semantic hair-split) dates. And that brings their presence on the table into question. But regardless, the remainder of the line is nothing but TBA's, and that's too much empty space (TBA being a cosmetic filler) and I commented the cells out as a result.

I could strongly encourage you to be careful about lecturing editors as experienced as I am about the basics until you know there's a need to. You assume I am unaware of a number of basic practices I know well, simply by reading far too much into a simple edit. I would also caution you against over-reliance on Futon Critic as a source; it's a good one in the short-term, but as dates and titles get longer term, it becomes increasingly less so, and not just because it projects dates and episode titles. History suggests it doesn't know as much as you contend it does. Drmargi (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't meant to be a condemnation; if anything I have a bad habit of being thorough in explaining my position. OCD? Too many misunderstandings? Who can say. If I came off chastising, I apologize. I just catch details and patterns in life other people sometimes miss (why I lean toward OCD), and I've noticed that Futon Critic's tendancy to be "off" is significantly reduced on cable networks for the reasons I previously cited. It's why their cable network projections go longer than their network projections do (With the exception of summer programming, I've never seen a network projection go further ahead than 4 wks). As far as the excess of TBA's - didn't exactly come up in the conversation, did it? That I can't argue with. I've seen it happen plenty, and it always does seems like clutter, not to mention an invitation to vandalism. I just wanted to get my side of it out there. If I'd felt strongly about it (and believe it or not, I don't), I would've reverted you again and/or duked it out with you on the episode talk page.

Truth is, I'm a truck driver. My entire participation is only to keep my info straight so I can manage my Tivo at home, and watch my shows on DVD on the road to kill my down time. I keep a chart on my Excell projecting when new episodes will air (I only need titles to weed out the repeats during schedule changes), and the cable network projections have yet to need adjusting. It's worked for me so far. KnownAlias contact 17:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

In Plain Sight

I've been over List of In Plain Sight episodes and the three season articles and given them a good cleanup. I've removed the succession boxes as they aren't needed (the same functionality is included in {{Infobox television season}}), added general refs, reorganised the tables so all fields are in the correct order, fixed a few errors and so on. One thing I find really peculiar is the table on the list article. Guest star information should be in the season articles but they contained only partial information so I've merged the rest from the table to the season articles. List of In Plain Sight episodes now provides little to no additional information to what's in the season articles. That said, other than cast information, the season articles don't provide anything of substance over what the episode tables provide. There's really no need for separate articles at this time. A combined article is only 36kB, well below the threshold for splitting. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I started the discussion regarding reverting to one one article on the IPS talk page. I couldn't remember the word merge (annoying) for a while, now fixed, but I think the point is made. Drmargi (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll comment further there. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Great - and thanks for fixing the url. Drmargi (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks so much for wiping out hours worth of my edits to the Castle TV show page. I did not appreciate your condescending attitude either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nev9600 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the risk you run, and something we've all had happen. Nothing condescending about my attitude, just my rationale for the edits I made. You might want to read up on what recurring characters on TV are. Drmargi (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

List of White Collar episodes

This suggestion was spot on. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Great! I think it's time to start a little campaign to fix a few of these. Burn Notice is OK, although the articles are loaded with fancruft to my mind, but White Collar is another example of jumping this particular gun. Are you up for it? Drmargi (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Let the discussion begin! Drmargi (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This edit is a good example of why articles shouldn't be split unnecessarily and then duplicated. Obviously somebody had updated the main list, but not the season. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I did the recent edit, of course, which has been a long-running problem because people don't watch the table and assume the episode codes in the note (which are made-up codes anyway, another pet peeve of mine) are wrong. When I did the edit on the season article, I checked to be sure it updated the list article as well.

I started the discussion on the White Collar episode list page. Drmargi (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In Plain Sight - June 2010

Please I have made the episode list 'simple' (ex. List of NCIS episodes, List of Law & Order: CI episodes, List of M*A*S*H episodes) if you will. All the excess information was moved to a subarticle (i.e. In Plain Sight (season 1)) if you will. The more excess and uneeded info on the MAIN episode list the harder it is to find what you are looking for. It all needs it's own seasons-by-season article. SVU4671 (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You cannot make these changes when it was discussed and consensus reached to restore the article. "Making it simple" is not sufficient reason - see the discussion on the list article's discussion page, which includes links to the criteria for a split. Those criteria haven't been met. Drmargi (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Goran Visnjic

I left all your changes to the article except where you changed after to since (I had changed since to after). I explained the reason why the word after should be used in the change box, but in the interest of good relations with other editors, I thought I'd post you a note. I am also hoping to avoid bouncing back and forth between us. Visnjic is no longer on ER, which, of course, ended. Since implies that Visnjic is still on a currently-running show. So, although I wasn't crazy about the original structure of the article (pivoting everything on ER), the word needed to be changed to reflect the current status.

I still don't like the number of times the word recently is used, but I left it alone.

Thank you for correcting my inadvertent error on the year of one of his films.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't see that after makes it any clearer that he's left ER, or that it's even particularly relevant given the passage discusses work both during and after the time he started on the show, but this isn't a hill I'd care to die on. Recently is a necessary evil to avoid some of the awkward construction I fixed. Drmargi (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

ICA Scoring Discussion

I'll take the action to write up a description of how the scoring is done. Let me know if you have any suggestions!  :-) --Cshashaty (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd wait until you have consensus that it even needs to be there. Right now, there's no meaningful discussion taking place, and no consensus. Drmargi (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Email

Is there any chance of you enabling email to you, even for a short time? I've got something to tell you that I'd rather say off-Wiki. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Done! Drmargi (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That's strange. There's no "E-mail this user" link. -AussieLegend (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Try again. I didn't realize at first that I had to confirm it. I just e-mailed you, and it worked. Drmargi (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Who Entry

Just curious about the edits. Edits made to correct the number of actors who played the Doctor in the TV series. Though there are 11 incarnations, well in fact 13 if you count the recent DreamLord who we learn is the Doctor in the end, and the Valeyard who is revealed to be a future incarnation of the Doctor in the Trial of a Timelord, it seems that the intent is to re-write history and claim only 11 actors ever played the character on the TV series.

In the least, accepting that in The Five Doctors, William Hartnell's Incarnation had his role reprised by another actor would in fact make it 12 who officially played the "Doctor". One edit stated as much but then was edited out saying that was for the list of actors page. Yet this entry contains reference to two actors playing the Doctor and one who plays a companion? How does that rationale work? Authenticity and consistency seems to be by the wayside here. Just curious as to the actual thoughts behind this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.222.26 (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no position on the issue. I simply took it back to where it started before what appears to be a budding edit war got going. I would suggest you leave it as is and discuss the situation, with an eye toward consensus, before making any further changes. You clearly have a valid argument to be made, but trying to simply make edits such as your wish, against long-standing consensus, will simply result in an edit war. Use the discussion route, and you stand a far better chance of getting where you want to be. Drmargi (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Eliot Spencer

I undid your undo of my revision because while it lengthens the character description by a sentence, it is important info about the character's background. Since there is no page dedicated to a character biography, the overview should contain the most important information, and that fact seems pretty central to Eliot's background.--Emgee1129 (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I will leave it to your good judgment. Indications on your talk page are that you are an experienced and fair editor.

The reason I felt it should be included is that it is one of the few direct details that Eliot has given regarding his background. For example, while "The Order 23 Job" strongly hinted that he may have suffered an abusive childhood, he never directly references this, and I wouldn't include something like that in the character overview section.

On another note, I would like to ask at what point a show should start having individual episodes having their own pages. Should a certain number of episodes be produced or is it just when someone decides to begin creating the pages?--Emgee1129 (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The Nigerian Job

I have begun the process of creating episode pages for the show. I decided to start, not surprisingly, with The Nigerian Job. Any help on improving the article (and even creating other episode pages) would be much appreciated.

Thanks.--Emgee1129 (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't get carried away. Identify a few notable episodes (I'd say Nigerian, Bank Shot, and the two Davids from S1) for articles. Not every episode is notable enough for its own article. Alert me when they're up, and I'll pitch in. To make it easier, follow my talk page, and let's keep the discussion here. Drmargi (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

A dated prod template was added to The Nigerian Job page. Would you be willing to help me develop the page a bit more and help prevent it from deletion? I removed the template for the time being, establishing reason on the talk page of the article. Likely, the same issue will occur on The Two-Horse Job page.

Thanks.--Emgee1129 (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's been a busy couple days, and I let this get away from me. The deletion of episode articles is often a bit arbitrary, in my experience. Let me go to work on it and see what I can do. In the meantime, think about why you feel this particular episode is notable enough to merit its own article. Drmargi (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The Two-Horse Job

Episode page for The Two-Horse Job completed.

Thanks for the continued assistance.--Emgee1129 (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

TGD again

I'm keeping an eye on him and I'm sure that means others are too. He's looking for a response and to waste our time. It takes seconds to revert, longer for him to edit, and much more time to enter into lengthy discussions (between ourselves or with him), so I'm just waiting for him to do something more characteristic to make it clear he's a sock or get bored of us reverting him. Halsteadk (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. But at least start warning the guy or he will escalate. History suggests that. At the very least, you're giving him a free pass to vandalise and abuse a user name. Drmargi (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

ER

Thanks for the heads up. I should've known better, I do have the complete collection after all.--The Taerkasten (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Season 3 on List of Castle episodes

Thanks for your input... But what is considered a reliable source? Is IMDB.com a reliable source? TV.com? TVguide.com? Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eposty (talk • contribs) 16:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

SpoilerTV

Okay, thanks for the info. I will remember that in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emgee1129 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

User 66.217.112.3

66.217.112.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been reported to Administrators noticeboard for repeated "fan speculation" sections, references that do not support his edits, and repeated usage of invalid sources. Just thought you would like to know. Trista (user Triste Tierra - cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! This one's been a problem child. Drmargi (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"Problem child" ?!? My, you are polite....I had several other terms in mind - all of them "uncivil" in Misplaced Pages language. :-) Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That's my generic expression for editors who need some attention and can't mind their manners. Uncivil captures this one, I agree completely! Drmargi (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"Problem Child" was blocked for a week after I reported them again. FYI! Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent!! Thanks for being so dilligent. Drmargi (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The Closer

DrMargi, Thanks for the very, very quick improvements to my notes in The Closer article. I am a big, big fan of The Closer! :) NearTheZoo (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem! I am, too. Drmargi (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for help (or--for your opinion, whether it helps my position or not!).

I added some comments to the wikimedia page on Prime Suspect, similar to the ones I made on the article for The Closer -- noting that some observers have noted the similarity between the two shows. While not claiming that The Closer was a remake of the British series, I quoted sources including the New York Times and USA Today which referred to The Closer as a "direct descendant," an "unofficial Americanization," or a show that owed a debt to Prime Suspect. Last night, another editor completely wiped out my comments, which were well-sourced, I thought, saying that I would need a quote from one of the *writers* of The Closer, to say that it was based on Prime Suspect. I don't think it's right that one editor can just delete comments that are factual (and it is a fact that many people have "noted similarities") when they include many references. I temporarily undid the deletion of the other editor and asked that she discuss the situation on the discussion page of Prime Suspect, and allow others to comment, rather than delete my work as a unilateral decision.

Could you look at the Prime Suspect article, and the discussion page, and share your thoughts. Whether you agree with me or not, I'd feel better if this issue could be a subject for discussion rather than a one-person decision. Thanks!! NearTheZoo (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I added some comments. I tend to agree that the content does have a place in the article, but you might want to be careful to note that these comments were largely about he first season, which bore a striking resemblance to PS. You might also want to find early interviews with James Duff and Greer Shepherd, both of whom state PS was not inspiration. It would add some balance. I'd also move it down in the article, so it follows the descriptions of the individual series. It doesn't belong so early in the article. Drmargi (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I just read this note from you plus the remarks on the Prime Suspect discussion page, and appreciate everything you've said. I am much more comfortable discussing how and where -- and even if -- the link between the shows should be noted, rather than having one editor unilaterally delete everything I wrote, along with the references. By the way, my original notes were shorter, and part of the "undue" weight noted by another editor might be because I added more references in an attempt to satisfy the editor who challenged my sources as "unreliable." I will search for the comments by The Closer creators you recommend, and try to figure out a better place for the notes. Again--thanks!!!! It is obvious we both share a love of certain TV programs! (I was a drama major decades ago whose life took an unexpected turn toward a completely different direction -- but my love of theater, movies, and TV is still a big part of me.) Thanks again! NearTheZoo (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick update (hope I'm not bombarding you with too much info). I did move the location of the section and noted the similarity was evidently more pronounced during the early series (using an early 2006 reference to the show as an "Americanization" of the series as a reference). I did want to share the film clip interview I found -- http://www.fancast.com/tv/The-Closer/1813/966634443/The-Closer---James-Duff-And-Kyra-Sedgwick-On-Recruiting-Kyra/videos -- which is an interview of both cast and creators of the show. It is only an excerpt, so it is possible that Duff mentions elsewhere in the interview that he originally envisioned the lead as a man, but here it is obvious that by the time the show was casting, the lead was set to be a woman. That's when Sedgwick's manager enticed her to read the script, calling it "a little bit like Prime Suspect" -- and that was the hook that got Sedgwick interested, after she had said she was not at all interested in the show for other reasons, including the fact that she did not want to do a show in L.A. I'm looking for more! NearTheZoo (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You're doing fine! I'll read it all and reply properly this evening. Drmargi (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Comprised vs. "comprised of"

Hi Drmargi! Long time no see, since the awful Coral/Rosie days, I believe. I just saw your edit on List of Covert Affairs episodes where you changed 'comprised' to 'is comprised of'. Things can be "composed of", or "consist of", but they comprise. Not sure where I learned that, but it was from someone here at Wiki, for sure. I remember being surprised about it, and looking it up. Apparently it is a very common mistake, one that I used to make often! Just thought I'd point it out to you. ;) --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you, too! I'm not sure where you learned it either, but my style manual disagrees. Maybe we're looking at American v. British English grammar? Drmargi (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that may very well be the case...why does English need to be so complicated? I didn't realize that would be one of those type of things that differs by country. Sorry! (But I'm glad i got to say HI!)--Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's good to say hi to you, too! I've got Elements of Style in my office. It's pretty much definitive American English -- why don't I check that? Drmargi (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

ER Task Force

Hello there! I've noticed that you have edited on ER articles mutiple times, and would like to invite you to the ER Task Force of the television wikiproject. Please have a look and see if you can offer your expertise with this wikiproject. Thanks! JoshuaJohnLee 17:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

№ versus #, etc.

I started changing these because I've noticed they've been leaning more toward this on other shows (such as The Office and others like that). I think it's because it makes the number columns smaller. I thought it was weird, too. Anywhere we could look to see if there's a new rule about this? Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is # and No. mean the same thing: number. Some IP editor started them recently, as far as I can tell, but when you use them, you remove the label that identifies the numbering system: number by season or number over the life of the series. Moreover, using different symbols to signify the same thing is never done in published encyclopedias. Esthetically, they might look nice to you, but they take away information the reader needs -- it's far less important that the columns are narrower than to have the reader able to tell what the numbers in the columns mean. Drmargi (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Sorry about that. I thought there was some new thing. As it stands, I like it (I have a wide monitor, so wide columns don't bother me). Thanks. Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No apology needed! It's one of those little fads that sweeps through Misplaced Pages occasionally. The one that drives me barking is people who put Part 1 or Part 2 in the box with the episode title when it's not explicitly part of the title. That's just wrong. Drmargi (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. If that's done, why not call episode 1 "Part 1", episode 2 "Part 2", and so on for the entire series? Many shows' episodes are just continuations of the previous, so it's basically a giant several-hundred-part thing. That drives me crazy too. Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The first editor I saw pushing №/# was this one. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Part 67 ;) I just thought to say that for a change i actually agree with you on something. № # is about as helpful as & %. If one doesn't know the symbol it actually looks like the heading is saying NO NUMBER and then has two columns of numbers below it. How odd. I do agree with Xeworlebi that squishing tables at lower resolutions is not nice but i am not in favour of sacrificing context to avoid the squish. delirious & lost ☯ 17:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, our old friend, who also pushes the Part 1/2 error I noted above as well; he does tend to favor moving the TOC to right screen and a couple other esthetic edits as well. And woe betide anyone who doesn't agree. I find the distorting the table argument a bit precious. Yes, in a perfect world a distorted table should be avoided, but when it sacrifices information, so what if the table isn't perfection? The purpose it to inform, not to get it pretty. And as I said above, using two symbols for the same term does nothing to differentiate the two columns and violates every MOS you can name, I'd wager. As I think we four would all agree: content and clarity come first. Drmargi (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Talkback #2

Talkback #3

those Top Gear episodes...

Since you seem to object to my taking a position on the RfC that is outside of the set options you put forward i have removed all of my initial, revised, and subsequent comments. I don't really take too kindly to you refactoring my comment to exclude it from the direct responses to the formal RfC. Calling my comment inappropriately placed when i undo your refactoring is beyond being polite. You formalised it into a Request For Comments and i commented. My interest and involvement in this show has only been the matter of this inconsistency of sources. I do not like the path that appears to be leading to declaring one source unreliable and the other reliable when they are both published by the BBC but noöne else seems interested in my observations. At your prompting i have removed myself from the Request For Comments. Considering i was on your side in using topgear.com i am a bit confused by your response but o well. delirious & lost ☯ 14:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's get a few things straight:

• First, I didn't set up the RfC, McCrackers did. Please check the edit history before you accuse.
• Second, I found your comment inappropriately placed (NOT inappropriate) because it addressed the right or wrong of the RfC rather than the issue itself, and saw the start of a heated debate, so I separated the two in an effort to keep the RfC process going. Moreover, your arguments were specious -- RfC is one of the mechanisms used to solve problems on Misplaced Pages, and branding it as "original research" simply doesn't hold water.
• Third, it appears to me that came into this discussion as an agent provocateur, carrying around a catalog of imaginary slights and seeing an opportunity. Your comments have been nonsensical at times, chaotic at others, and rarely on point. You say you're "on my side", but that's simply not clear.
• Fourth, factoring is a mathematical process. However, you appear to be accusing me of editing your comments, which is categorically untrue. I added a heading above your comment to separate the comments on the issue from the discussion about the RfC that your comment generated. I still contend it does not belong with the comments on the RfC, for the reasons noted above.
• Finally, it was your choice to remove your comments. There was no prompting from me. My parenthetic addition was needed to make clear what comment we were addressing. As I've said before, the rest is your imagination.

Frankly, I'm heartily weary of the whole thing, and would prefer we avoid one another in future. Drmargi (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, you left me a talk back for what? To prompt me to not ignore you. I mean, come on.
Considering we edit about the same thing and i am not quitting then if you want to avoid me....
Whatever you think of it it is still my response to the RFC. How you you like if i were to have removed yours to somewhere else on the page because i didn't like it? You all objected & i re-wrote it. And again i received objection to it. It is a bloody request for comments and you don't want my comment which points out a fundamental flaw in the request being commented on. Moving my comment out of the section for comments was most absolutely uncalled for. Calling it inappropriate was worse. The first version was a bit much with the bold red. That is why i re-wrote it. If you don't call that prompting then you really need to look of the meaning of the word because those were some rather bold hints you repeatedly gave.
Which information from the same publisher is more reliable? When the approach is the consider the reliability of the publisher in determining appropriate sources and an RfC is set up pitting the publisher against itself in a question of reliability then yes i oppose the RfC. Now Aussie won't let me have the comments removed. How nice. I showed up there to try to help. Clearly it was neither wanted or needed and has been a complete waste of my time. So yes, removing my comments entirely from the rfc is completely intentional so as to be done with it. But you do know we still have common interest in shows like Lie to me*, White Collar, Southland, and probably a few dozen others. I just have no interest at all in Top Gear and only wanted to ensure the info in the episode list would be accurate once the dust settled. delirious & lost ☯ 16:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ghost Hunters International

The flags are organized by nations because it's an International show. Scotland, Wales and England are all part of the United Kingdom they are not separate nations. Just like Queensland and Tasmania are all part of Australia. Puerto Rico is part of the US. They are NOT separate nations. How it's listed in the description is going by what was shown on television. Besides more people are going to recognize the British National Flag before they recognize the Flag of England Cyberia23 (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast rules for these things. You probably should read up on the UK and on Puerto Rico. The UK is a unitary state typing four independent nations (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) together into a constitutional monarchy. The are four independent nations with one centralized government, and in the case of Scotland and Northern Ireland, devolved national governments. It's a long way from as simple as their being one nation. The flags are discretionary: the individual countries fly their own flags, and the Union Flag represents the union: the independent countries under one flag. In the article, you're talking about the individual countries, and their national flags are, to my mind at least, more appropriate. I'm happy to open a discussion regarding the flags if that's more likely to keep them in place.

I don't agree that readers are more likely to recognize the Union flag than the individual national flags. Moreover, if they need to, the flags are decorative, and someone's going to get rid of them -- it happens all the time. On the other hand, if you argue that the use of the flags is informative, (oh, that's what the Scottish flag looks like!) they have a function that justifies both the individual national flags and retention of the flags, period.

Also, when I first created this article, and added to it as the show went on, I added individual flags for Wales and Scotland once and some kept switching them to UK with the argument that they weren't separate nations. Although they'd like to be, they aren't. It later made sense to me so I left it that way. I'm not sure about Puerto Rico, I consider them US territory, They use US Currency, they get US tax breaks and incentives and yadda yadda. They don't want to be state because they'll lose all their freebie kudos. Cyberia23 (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is different from the UK. Puerto Rico is a territory, not an American state, which use of the American flag implies. It has its own flag; the US flag does not and should not replace it (same for the Mariana Islands and at one time, the Philippines). All the governmental jazz doesn't govern whether PR flies the US flag - US Flag Code does. The US flag is used to represent Puerto Rico's connection to the US (in other words, the territorial relationship) and American entities in Puerto Rico (such as US government offices), but representation of Puerto Rico as a country requires use of the Puerto Rican flag. And you see that done all over Misplaced Pages.

Another thing, if you're going call me out on something at least have the courtesy of doing on my talk page, instead of another user's. Thank you. Cyberia23 (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

And you're right there. I should at least have give you a talkback on your talkpage. For that, I apologize. Drmargi (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You wrote: "Whoa! Puerto Rico is an associated territory, but is not an American state, and it does not use the American flag. It has its own flag, which should be displayed. Check the article here in the Misplaced Pages." Drmargi (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with this and agree that Puerto Rico is not an American state, that's why I put the Puerto Rican flag icon. However I believe it was changed back by the creator of the page (Cyberia23), so you should direct all you "talk" conments to this user as he/she has done with me. Clearly this user does not want to use flags of the countries themselves and reverted all my England, Scotland, and Wales flags to United Kingdom flags, its Cyberia23's page so I cannot change them back. Next time, please check the user history on who edited the page. But I do agree at least PR should have its own flage represented! Sue Kastle (talk), 15:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry; I had a brain cramp and replied the wrong place, so just ignore or delete my comments. No sweat there. I realize we're on the same page regarding PR (which is now correct) and the UK countries; my comments were directed at Cyberia23, which is why they were subordinated under his/her posting. Actually, you can change them back as long as you don't violate WP:3RR or start an edit war -- articles don't have owners (see WP:OWN), so Cyberia23 has no final say in the matter. I wonder if we want to initiate a discussion on the article talk page given we're in agreement. The Union Flag doesn't represent the individual countries but rather the union, and is arguably used inappropriately in this context. What do you think? Drmargi (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That is no problem, Drmargi, I figured you had the wrong editor. I wrote to Cyberia23 also thinking it was this user who created the entry page: I wanted all the countries to have their own flags, I didn't realized this user wanted it to be "national" flags. I did change all the UK flags because I thought it would be better to represent individual countries of the UK: England, Scotland, and Wales, which I know make up the United Kingdom, but I was trying to show each nation's flags. But for some reason Cyberia23 wants "national flags" quoting Ghost Hunters is "InterNATIONAL" and wants international flags to be easier for American viewers to indenitfy with the UK flag. I also changed the Anerican flag someone had next to Puerto Rico, which is not an American state, but their own country. I am still new to the "rules" of Misplaced Pages (I have only started editing as a registered user since Oct 2010) and will respect Cyberia23's wishes, but I don't agree with them. I don't want an "edit war" but I wonder how all can come to an agreement of just putting each country's own individual flag, not the entire nation's like the UK... Sue Kastle (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2011.

spell checker

i would love to one problem...... when it gives you list of 5 or 6 words i dnt have clue which one is right, and a lot of the time it doesn't know what i am typing, small words it works fine for and i generally use it but anything over 3 syballels they fail because i aint just dyslexic i also have speech problems which actually affect my ability to spell phyntacially and without that ia m screwed, this has been spelled checked and it still got plenty of error--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The First White Stig

I think the title should be The First White Stig (Sacked Stig), as when people see the title all the information is conveyed as that is what the people on the show call First White Stig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilee (talk • contribs) 17:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts

I have amended the complaint filed against me to name yourself as a co-accused by myself, mostly for creating the side-discussion about me at Aussie's talk page when you had just told me "it's very poor form, and quite uncivil, to discuss a user not part of a discussion in that discussion". delirious & lost ☯ 09:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not looking to be a pain but given this larger issue is about misunderstanding of acceptable retraction of comments i am not really sure what you are asking for on that page by simply saying to abide by the policy. If you want to leave me an example that would probably be for the best. Do also keep in mind that i have been asking the same of you on that other page and you have outright refused for a few weeks now. I am willing but i don't want to make it worse by doing it through striking if you want names removed or another permitted option per the policy because that is what the issue is about in the first place, my following your example and then it not being acceptable and massively blowing up from there. I would prefer to get it right the first time and move on to more pleasant things. delirious & lost ☯

I have noticed that Aussie has deemed me not welcome in the discussion about me on his talk page. I have added it to the complaint and made a request on Aussie's talk page that all mention of me be removed per your own standard of not being mentioned in a discussion you are not part of and not welcome to participate in. That would mean entirely removing all mention of me and continuing the secondary conversation about SAG on as you wish with a section heading that doesn't name me.
For making this a 3rd message i do apologies but i am having a bit of trouble keeping track of everything right now and as i notice them i mention them. delirious & lost ☯ 10:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted Deliriousandlost's change of name. Since it's "my" complaint and it was about her actions at a specific page, it's inappropriate after more than 3 weeks and 9,500 words to amend a complaint, especially by the complainee. If she persists in such disruptive action I'll take it to ANI myself. The discussion on my talk page will remain. If anybody wants to retract their comments by striking them through, they're welcome to do so. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll deal with the above in due course -- it's very early Saturday morning here, and I have other fish to fry for most of the day. Drmargi (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Incivility

I willingly apologize for the incivility, it was in bad taste. However, since you are the one constantly redoing my edits, I question why you feel it necessary to police the page as such. To look at the history of my edits on the Leverage page, you will notice that while the first round may have indeed been excessive, the second edit was noticeably shorter and was intended mostly to take out what I considered to be confusing and inelegant writing, such as replacing "catching the bad guys" with "making major arrests". These are effectively cosmetic changes and it frustrated me to see them taken down so rapidly. I feel that it is necessary to note that Taggert and McSweeten are incompetent (the way the paragraph is written now, this is not implicit), and that Nate and Maggie's marriage ended just as much because of Sam's death as Nate's alcoholism. If you feel that is excessive, would you mind explaining why? - Ringkichardthethird (talk) 1:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. The problem is your use of subjective (or in Misplaced Pages shorthand, POV) language. You see Taggert and McSweeten as incompetent. I don't agree; they're a little inept, and have benefitted from the Leverage team, to be sure, but we've never seen anything to suggest incompetence. Thus, my removal of the WP:POV use of incompetence. You also described McSweeten as having a "major" (I think it was) crush on Parker; again, this is POV. What is major? It's too subjective to be encyclopedic in this context. Equally problematic was the description of Sophie as possibly British (r)oyalty. The show told us she ran a long con as a fake Duchess, but royalty? That wasn't remotely suggested, although the show did misuse the term royalty when it came to titles such as Duchess. It left an open question about Sophie's origins, but any speculation about that is not appropriate here, where it might be on a fansite.

I would be careful about accusing me, or anyone else, of "policing" a page. Editors take varying degrees of interest in given articles, and you tend to see the same editors more frequently on certain pages. It's easy to throw around terms like policing or owning an article, but very, very difficult to prove. Moreover, the guiding assumption around here is one of good faith -- we assume editors act to improve the article, not for personal or other reasons. I agree with your point regarding the inelegant writing in the descriptions of some of the characters, catching the bad guys being among the more problematic phrases, but you need to temper your editing with awareness of a few basic guidelines. Drmargi (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sneak preview vs. series beginning dates

Hi, Drmargie, Some time ago you and I discussed the issue of comparisons between Prime Subject and The Chosen, and I saw you as someone with a lot of expertises regarding television programming (among other issues). I have been working on the page for Camelot (TV series) and have had a number of edits reverted by another editor -- and have tried to learn from his/her reverts, avoiding wars or outright disagreements. (Although I just asked if he/she might throw in the phrase "good faith" once in awhile when he/she reverts what I've written.) :) In any event, I was curious about one issue, which is the beginning date of a series when the network airs a "sneak preview" of the show more than a month before the scheduled start. For Camelot, Starz advertises that it is scheduled to begin April 1, also advertising that a special Feb 25 airing of the first episode was a "sneak preview." (See http://www.starz.com/originals/Camelot/Episode101). In the infobox, the question about which I'm disagreeing is that the other editor wants "original run" to read: February 25, 2011 - present. I think it should read: First episode preview aired February 25, 2011; Series scheduled to begin April 1, 2011. (Then, after April 1, change to "April 1, 2011-present; First episode preview aired February 25, 2011." Since the discussion so far has been between me and one other editor, I was curious what you think. I'll look here for the answer! Best wishes, NearTheZoo (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Editing writing of other editors on talk pages.

I am sorry about that. I see now that I should not have done it, and thought about it more before executing that action. SilvestertheCat (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

List of White Collar characters

As someone who has worked on various USA shows in the past, including this one, I assume you are fairly knowledgable about the subject. I've been working on an article for a list of White Collar characters, which can be found here. I've decided it's about time to make one, as many other character lists have been made about shows in the past (some at much earlier points in the show, such as the Royal Pains character list) and have done fairly well. Any contributions or tips you may have would be welcome. Thank you, Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good so far. I'll keep an eye on it as it progresses; let me know if you want me to read/edit/comment at any specific time. Otherwise, I'll communicate with you about it rather than messing with the article itself. One thing did jump out at me: you need to be consistent with the main article in terms of describing main v. recurring characters. Billing isn't the only measure, and is often determined less by the nature of the role than by the idiocies of a SAG contract. Sharif Atkins is clearly a main character, as was discussed earlier, whereas Natalie Morales was never more than a recurring character, which is reflected in the table (and discussed on the talk page.) Aside from that, you're good to go for now! Drmargi (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll switch those. I was going off billing on the show, but I see now that the main page is a bit different (and rightly so). Thanks! Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, what's the status of this article at present? I've got the same message from Daily Editor as you do. I'd hate to see the two of you working at cross-purposes on the same project. I know you've put a lot of work in, and I don't want to encourage DE to do what you've already done when collaboration would be a better option. Drmargi (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I sent DE a message informing him/her of my article, and suggested that we collaborate on the article. While I have the outline drawn up, DE has two of the actual descriptions written, so I don't think there should be any problems. Kevinbrogers (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Kitchen Nightmares

I semi-protected the article for now. Garion96 (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Burn, baby, burn

Take it out. Not a big deal. TREKphiler 05:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Another editor already did. I'm surprised someone who helps newbies wouldn't know that kind of post doesn't go on the talk page.Drmargi (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been a long day. :( TREKphiler 06:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I can seriously relate to that. Ah, well. Tempest in a teapot, and not much of one at that. Drmargi (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

AIV

Your report was stale, the user had not edited in over four hours. Dreadstar ☥ 03:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The user is in the UK, and I'm in the US (west coast). There's bound to be a disparity. Four hours is far from what I'd term stale, particularly under the circumstances. Drmargi (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the instructions on WP:AIV, it says "3. Unregistered users must be active now", and four hours doesn't fit that timeframe. I also do not see sufficient edits from that user to warrant a block beyond the standard thresholds of AIV, as a matter of fact, the vandalism isn't that clear either. And, just fyi, it's confusing, but there are multiple meanings to 'stale" at AIV:

• Stale report. User has not edited in X.
• Stale warning. Last warning was issued Y ago.
• Report was good at the time, but is now stale. (X since last edit) Re-report if this user resumes vandalising.

Dreadstar ☥ 04:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll periodically check that user's edits, and if you see further problematic edits, please let me know directly, and I'll take care of it. Dreadstar ☥ 04:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Will do. I see this a bit differently because I see his/her edits as they occur. I also interpreted "active now" as fitting into a broader time frame than a few hours. There are multiple warnings on his/her talk page, and this may be one of four IPs (two London and two Manchester) he/she is using. That part I can't prove (yet), but when you look at the substance of his/her edits, it's more than just some jarhead rushing to add incorrect information; it's deliberately added to disrupt the article(s) and has been since the fracas over one of Top Gear's comments about Mexico. But we've got a plan to deal with him/her, and that's good for now. Thanks! Drmargi (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and semiprotected several of the Top Gear articles, looks like there's been some long-term disruption and vandalism by anon editors. That should help, but let me know if there are others. Dreadstar ☥ 06:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I will, and thanks again, particularly for the semi-protects. I'm trying to back-track a group of IP's that are in the UK to see if we can find a pattern; I think we've got an IP hopper here, but can't be sure. I do know one or two have been blocked previously. Will let you know if anything shakes out. Drmargi (talk) 06:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you blocked this account this morning. Hopefully that will at least slow him/her down; you might want to take a peek at User:86.133.163.241; the patterns of edits is very similar, and I hear ducks quacking. That account has also had a good few warnings. I don't think there's anything actionable at the moment, but there's potential for it to go active again. Thanks! Drmargi (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Dreadstar ☥ 18:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

OH, you're good. That should take the wind out of his/her sails nicely! Drmargi (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Iron Chef America episodes

Apologies, I'm not currently able to look into this, I've got a major issue I'm dealing with. You might want to take it to WP:RFPP....sorry! Dreadstar ☥ 00:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; I appreciate your help. I was hoping to KISS and avoid an RFP, but the guy is pretty clearly a sockpuppet (I hear ducks quacking all over the place) who's not willing to work within the system, so something will have to be done. Drmargi (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I took a look and it was an obvious disruptive SPA sock, so I blocked the master and sprotected the target pages since there is IP Hopping going on. Dreadstar ☥ 04:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You are the best. I really do appreciate the trouble you went to, especially in the middle of a hassle. This is the second go-round with the master and his puppets (Suffolk County, VA -- pull the other one) and I wasn't relishing the ugliness of a sockpuppet report. Thank you! Drmargi (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

For reference, in case anyone is interested in facts as opposed to emotional personal agendas. :-) From the User talk:74.108.11.202 page:

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Your use of multiple IP's and a registered account to create the illusion you're more than one person (sockpuppeting) to disruptively edit is no longer acceptable. Drmargi (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

An editor has expressed concern? An editor is either 1. carelessly but not deliberately wrong on the facts (in the vernacular, clueless), or else 2. (and this would be even worse) deliberately predisposed, in bad faith, to call everyone who does anything she doesn't like an alternate IP of a single person. I imagine she reckons that in this fashion she can make it a one-on-one and then claim superiority to the "one", rather than having to face and do something about the reality that she is simply one rigid person facing multiple openminded people who happen not to agree with her at every moment about every little preference. I see she got a senior wikipedian to lock the "List of Iron Chef America episodes" article for a time. Wow, impressive. And did she give him accurate facts in order to get him to do that? ... Apparently WP:VERIFY, WP:POV, and WP:RS only come into play to justify her reversion of edits she dislikes. She might consider deploying those research principles when it comes to her own constant hypotheses of sockpuppetry. Reading around wikipedia pages over the years, I notice that bossy people often make this "you are all one person" claim, often without actually proving it with written evidence that withstands scrutiny. Reminds me of olden times on usenet. In this particular case about 74.108.11.202, it's easy for me to call BS, and we'll see how it goes from here. Occasionallyhelping (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

And, from Talk:List_of_Iron_Chef_America_episodes:

When I logged out a little while ago, I noticed that I had a new message sent to User talk:74.108.11.202, claiming that that IP is a sockpuppet of Chefsuffolk. But 74.108.11.202 is actually me, occasionallyhelping, which is why I got notified.

Since this is not paid work or professional publication, I simply do not always see the point in bothering to log in to edit. I can't put this sort of self-publication or volunteer work on a real resume, and I just do it now and then when it strikes me to add something (hence the handle). I also work from various computers; my entire employment is online. So I am sure I have edited from many IPs over time. And? -- I bet most WP editors of any volume have edited from multiple IPs.

Drmargi is not an unintelligent person, but she constantly insists on having her precise way, and when she encounters any dissent she says everyone who has ever done anything she doesn't like is a sockpuppet of one person. My concise comment: WP:OWN, WP:DUCK

By the way, I wrote both the original Hearst-youngest footnote that drmargi keeps putting back up now, and also the FN-got-it-wrong-about-Hearst footnote that she keeps deleting. I'm kind of enjoying the pingpong being so fiercely played with my little notes. :-) I'm happy for it to be either way. BUT in the hierarchy of actual real-research values (I edit academic publications), getting it right always trumps such lower-ranking research values as where information is gotten from and accurately credited to. What WP article is that, WP:GETITRIGHT? :-) Occasionallyhelping (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Occasionallyhelping (talk • contribs)

Thanks!

Thanks so much for the barnstar! Really appreciated, especially now! And I'm glad I could help... Dreadstar ☥ 15:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You deserve it. I read a bit of the case, and I'm rooting for you! Drmargi (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Two comments

Hello... sorry to have to ask this, given all your work here, but you need to stop reverting the word "season" in place of "series" for the list of Doctor Who episodes. Despite the airing on BBCA, the article is written in British English and as such uses the appropriate spellings. (We do not mix spellings, as demonstrated in Cheque.) Incidentally, I dialled up your contributions to see if you had posted about the "series"/"season" matter and noticed that you were also reverting in "Quebecois" at the "Iron Chef" list. Again, please note that we would in fact use "Canada" in that case; the notes refer to the country and the subject's own article uses "Canadian". Thanks in advance. --Ckatz_spy 15:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I still disagree. I made the original edit that added the information about the BBC America promotions for season six, which is how it's being promoted in the US. It's not just a matter of preference for American English, it's inaccurate to use the term series to describe what BBC America is showing/promoting. The MOS and ENGVAR allow for variations such as this in order to maintain accuracy, given BBC America is not promoting the UK Series 6, but rather is promoting US Season 6. Drmargi (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

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

Neal Caffrey

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

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

Neal Caffrey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No winner in last supper???

Please see . --Stefan 05:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop reverting and discuss instead.

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

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

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

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

Spooks

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

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

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

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

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

I'd leave Armitage alone until we have a more definitive end to his story. We spent a good bit of time talking it out at the time, and that was the consensus. I think the comment on Sophia Myles is OK as is, and it's sourced. The plagiarism was my error, which I fixed. Again, I apologize for that. Drmargi (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't Richard Armitage count as a reliable source? Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Aarti Sequeria

I added the category for aarti sequeira bcoz if she calls herself a catholic, then she should be categorised under Indian Christians or Indian Roman catholics...--Johnmylove (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)--Johnmylove (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with the assignment of categories. Do as you think is best. However, Catholic is a proper noun, and should always be capitalized, as should Aarti's name. It's also customary to add a heading when you start a new section, and to write in full words, not "text-speak". You're not writing text messages here. You're writing to an encyclopedic standard and to be clearly understood. Drmargi (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Robert Irvine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TPO

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

Oh, you're right. It was just 6:30 am on a Saturday and I was annoyed. -- Drmargi (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I totally comprehend that feeling. I really do. Dreadstar ☥ 02:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see why you might of late. Thanks for the back-up! Drmargi (talk) 05:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks

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

Far too metaphorical for an encyclopedia?

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your work regarding PS

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

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

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

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

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

Red Nose Fun

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

Do you know, is "Fall" capitalized?

Hi Drmargi. I know you are really good with style/grammar, so you were the first person I thought of when I didn't find the answer I wanted via brief Google search. Regarding TV show articles, is the word "fall" capitalized, as in "It will premiere in Fall 2011"? I know that when you phrase it "in the fall", it is decapped. I keep having the urge to decapitalize the word, but have refrained because I wasn't sure. I did find this in the MOS: WP:Capitalization#Calendar_items, but it didn't help me. :/ Any insight into this? Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Technically, it's a common noun and not capitalized. However, I think it should be at times, although it's probably more a matter of taste than a hard-and-fast rule. For example, when we use it to label the Fall television season (which might go another noun, as in the MOS), I believe we're treating it as a proper noun, and it's correct to capitalize it, as you suggest. Otherwise, we use it as a common noun and shouldn't be capitalized. Funnily enough, I have the same argument with myself all the time when I write about academic terms (i.e. fall semester) and when they should be capitalized. Hope that helps! Drmargi (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Gracias!

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

New articles

Would you mind looking over and possibly rating a couple new articles I've created? I want to make sure I didn't miss anything, and have a third party read over and fix anything I may have done wrong. The articles can be found at Burn Notice: The Fall of Sam Axe and "Pilot (White Collar)". Thanks! Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure! I'm not sure how to rate them; isn't that something a TV project member does? I'm happy to learn how if it's appropriate. Drmargi (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it is, but I believe it's already been done on these two articles. Thanks, though! Kevinbrogers (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hawaii Five-0

I thought the series had finished for the year? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

It doesn't matter if it is. WP:SPOILER covers inclusion of episode details, and folks from overseas need to exercise some personal responsibility before reading the article. Drmargi (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I was just confused. Feel free to zap this whole section. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Humble request

I've been working on the article for the Chuck pilot, "Chuck Versus the Intersect", and would like to nominate it for GA or FA eventually. But I know how long that process can take. Would you mind looking over the article and correcting anything I missed or giving me advice on how to improve it (other than the fact that the last sentence is unsourced; if I can't find a reliable source, I'll just remove the statement)? Thanks! --Boycool (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure! It may be a few days before I can. And do bear in mind, I don't watch Chuck, so I can't comment on accuracy of story points. But that might also be helpful, because I can read it from an outsider's point of view. Drmargi (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I just need someone with experience on Misplaced Pages. --Boycool (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Call for consensus: Dead/Alive/Unknown

On Spooks. 203.35.135.133 (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The longer we drag this out the longer the articles are wrong. And it's not a vote, it's just a consensus was made on old information - some thinking Lucas's death was ambiguous, some thinking that he was dead but we had no references so couldn't say it. I'm after a consensus now that a reliable reference has been found. So I called for a consensus so the old opinions aren't counted as current ones.

What exactly is you problem with Lucas the article saying Lucas is dead? It can't be because you don't want him to be dead, because you're a good editor who's done a lot of good work and know that our opinion doesn't count. It can't be that you're afraid that the makers may reverse it, that sort of thing can happen, but you know we can't pre-guess twists or changes. It can't be that an interview on a DVD isn't reliable because it is. It can't be because you believe that the previous reference to an earlier interview is better because it is seriously flawed. So what is the problem you have? Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covert Affairs

Ah, didn't see the duplicate entry. Thanks for catching that. Cheers. --Ckatz_spy 00:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It was easy to miss -- I did a couple fixes and missed it as well. Drmargi (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Richard Castle

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

RE:Walliams/Lucas

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

Mahalo for the talk page message.

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

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

New User "Huh direction"; "Tablization" of List of Chopped episodes

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

Of course, if you're not "Huh directions", you can totally ignore my comments and tell me to get bent.  ;-)

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

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

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

I've removed the notes parameter. The notes need to be there, but they go under a table, not in a table. Check the Iron Chef America episode article for format. The parameter as you created it makes the table much longer with too many empty cells in order to house too little information. Hang on until I finish Season 2, then I'll restore all the notes at once. Also, it's really tough when we're editing "over" each other. Let me finish season two, then we can talk about what needs to be done next aside from finishing the rest of the seasons. That avoids a repeat of edits such as you removing the first-instance linking of the editors I'd very carefully done. Drmargi (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I meant to expressly state I was assuming goog faith, but the invitation to tell me to get bent was the implied assumption. I just hate seeing when innocent actions get people caught up, and I'd hate for someone less familiar with things to stumble on it and make things difficult.

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

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

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

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

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

• FYI, before you posted your latest follow up, I added this issue to the article's talk page, plus invited comments on a few of the TV wikiproject pages. I had a longer comment about it for your talk page, but got conflicted out when I hit save.Agent 86 (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'm so disappointed you reverted my last set of edits without doing a revision history check. There was no potential for edit conflicts, as you had said that you were done for the night. All I did was remove the overlinks. I did nothing to change the tables, format, or content. It took me three hours to remove all that linkcruft, so I'm feeling a little out of sorts about its revision.Agent 86 (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Trouble was, I was in the middle of converting seasons four and five, which created the edit conflict. You couldn't see it, which is why I asked you to please not edit over or ahead of me (more than once), and to be patient until the conversion is done. I'm sorry you're out of sorts, but it takes me three to four hours to convert one season to table, and that's without having to go back and attempt to find, then correct the edits you made in the middle of the conversion. Imagine how frustrated I was. It was an outright nightmare to fix, so I had no choice but to revert. Please, PLEASE just wait until the table conversion is done before you make any further edits. I know you want to improve the article, but the idea was to collaborate, and you're just making things more difficult. Drmargi (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I took you at your word when you said you were done for the night. I had thought as part of the collaboration that you'd wake up and be able to work with a version that did not require you to remove all the linkcruft.Agent 86 (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

And I took you at your word that you were going to stop editing until the tables were done, or I'd have warned you I had torn S4 and S5 (as I now have S6 and S7) apart to get them ready to move to table form. I know you wanted to be helpful, and I appreciate that, but I would really appreciate it if you'd stop editing until I finish the tables. Right now, that's the best way you can help. Then we can discuss what should/shouldn't be linked, and what needs to be done next. Drmargi (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)

This was not vandalism. Imo, the quotes give the article a very in-universe touch. Somebody apparently put them there in place of properly verifiable review and analysis of the plot. The quotes convey the tone of the series in an unreflected way rather than contributing to a sober, neutral recounting of the narrative content. --87.78.48.131 (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is all fine. But with an IP editor, and absent both an edit summary and any discussion on the talk page, how is another editor to know? This is a potentially controversial edit, as those quotes have been in the article for some time, and accumulated as they changed. At the very least, the edit should have had a clearly explanatory edit summary. Ideally, the edit was discussed before it was made, and then made only once you had consensus to remove the quotes. As it is, to take them out with neither invited other editors to draw their own conclusions about why the quotes were removed. Drmargi (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I should have used an edit summary. I'm lazy that way and imo the quotes are just so out of place and style that I deemed their removable non-controversial cleanup rather than a discussion-worthy edit.

But with an IP editor, and absent both an edit summary and any discussion on the talk page, how is another editor to know? -- I wasn't accusing you of anything, just clarifying that my edit was not a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity" of the article.

done only once you had consensus to remove the quotes with neither invited other editors to draw their own conclusions about why the quotes were removed. -- BOLD, IAR and BRD say you're wrong about that.

More importantly, since you appear to be focused on the perceived accusatory content of my message (which, again, is far removed from my intentions), how about you focus on the edit itself rather than its circumstances? It is of crucial importance to your revert whether you believe that those quotes should be in there or not. Do you? If so, let's focus the discussion on the content of my edit, on those quotes. --87.78.48.131 (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Let's start over. I didn't read accusatory content in anything you said. Far from it. But it's been my experience that IP editors require a good bit more explanation, and more basic explanation, of reverts, which is what you got. I also wanted to be sure you understood why I did what I did, and why my rationale was what it was. I recognize your intent now, but that wasn't clear at first -- another side effect of no edit summary. Be aware, too that this particular article has had its issues with vandalism and other unexplained and/or controversial edits over the years.

The trouble with your suggestion is that, in this case, you can't really separate the edit from the circumstances of the edit. All edits should include an edit summary, and the three policies you cite operate in an environment that assume that a) editors will use edit summaries to explain their edits to others and b) that controversial edits will be discussed and made with the befit of consensus. I think if you read the policies careful, you'll find editors are not given free license to remove content, but rather must do it in a way that informs the community and provides a starting point for discussion. Otherwise, as I said before, you leave yourself wide open to a revert (that's the R in BRD, btw) such as I made.

As for the quotes, do they have a place in the article? Yes and no. My biggest concerns are the big chunk of space they occupy and how little meaning they have chunked up together rather than attached to content relating to the season from which they come, along with the worrying fact that they are copyrighted material. But the community's consensus has been that they have a place in the article as presented, and I would never have simply dropped in and taken them our, certainly not without allowing for discussion first.

So, if you feel strongly that they should come out, start a discussion on the article talk page. Who knows; no one may give a hoot, and you can take them out with implied consensus behind you. (An aside: you're rather well-informed for an IP editor. That will draw questions from some editors, many of whom may have suspicions about why an experienced editor isn't registered. Fair or not, that colors perceptions of an edit.) Drmargi (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I know what the R in BRD stands for. I mentioned BRD since judging from your initial reply, you didn't appear to know about the B.

As to the quotes, community's consensus has been that they have a place in the article as presented. -- Hm. I perform edits in accordance with the spirit and wording of our policies and guidelines in mind rather than regarding a local consensus of typically more or less hiveminded people as overriding project-wide considerations.

To be perfectly clear: When I see something that to my best judgment goes against best practice, I never look at the talk page. I follow my own judgment, since (judging from experience) it's better guidance than a local discussion between a limited and likely likeminded group of editors, which is rather like tossing a coin with regard to the correctness of their conclusions (as evidenced imo by the inclusion of the quotations, in this form).

So what exactly is the problem with the quotes, according to me?

• First of all and most crucially, it lacks proper attribution as required by Misplaced Pages:Copyrights. A hyperlink or URL to the source or a copy, or at least a full list of the authors is strictly necessary for copyrighted material to be included. (To be completely honest, this was not an initial consideration for my edit, but looking through the applicable guidelines, I see now that this is actually the strongest reason to (a) leave the quotations as they currently are out of the article and to (b) liberally ignore any local talk page consensus to the contrary as invalid, based on overriding policy concerns.
• Misplaced Pages:Quotations#Overusing quotations says that "Overuse happens when a quotation is used without pertinence. This means that a quotation is visually on the page, but its relevance is not explained anywhere." -- This also applies. The quotes are there as a substitute for proper article prose. Their presence or relevance is never explained in the article.
• The content of the quotations could be summarised in encyclopedic prose. Dumping the quotes in there is just lazy by the people who want that content included.

In all, the quotes need at least proper attribution. Even then, they still represent questionable style. Local consensus cannot override site-wide policy considerations, especially not copyright or essential stylistic issues. --87.78.48.131 (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

the three policies you cite operate in an environment that assume that a) editors will use edit summaries to explain their edits to others and b) that controversial edits will be discussed and made with the befit of consensus. -- Speaking from personal experience, an edit summary can sway only a tiny minority of users. Many people revert simply because they are ignorant about our P&G framework, and even when I link the applicable policy or guideline in the edit summary. Even more crucially, Misplaced Pages operates under the assumption that established editors take care to perform their edits in accordance with our core content policies and with awareness of our stylistic guidelines. When in doubt (as indicated by your edit summary "possible vandalism"), registered users really have no excuse for performing a revert without first taking a glance at the applicable project pages. They are supposed to know where to look stuff up.

editors are not given free license to remove content, but rather must do it in a way that informs the community and provides a starting point for discussion -- The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. In this case, the burden is twofold: Providing proper attribution, and writing the content of the quotations up as article prose (or at least explain the quotations' presence and relevance in the prose). --87.78.48.131 (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

205.209.83.211

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

Edit summaries

Noticed some conversation on the talk page of the IP User 205.209.83.211 and thought to give you a heads up. While the lack of edit summaries frustrate me to no end, the use is not a requirement on Misplaced Pages. That said, it is definitely good practice, tending to minimize the removal of user contributions. Consistent use also becomes a factor during requests for adminship, with RfA pages presenting statistics about how often the nominee has provided edit summaries in the past. All in all though, it's just not policy or a requirement. You can find more information about edit summaries here. Best regards, Cind.amuse 15:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the heads up, but I know all that. But there's a little more to it than meets the eye if you're unfamiliar with the IP user's history, and in his/her case, it became a line in the sand that was needed to begin to curb some pretty aggressive editing practices, particularly on articles relating to elimination-style competition TV shows. Drmargi (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm completely aware of his history, encouraging him on all fronts to use edit summaries. Due to a lack of rationale for arbitrarily blanking content, I simply reverted his edits and placed a warning for blanking content. Anything short of threatening a block for not using edit summaries, which is not a blockable offense. Honestly, I expect a return to the same after the week block is over. That said, I also expect a block for blanking, if the disruptive editing continues. I would recommend a user warning more inline with policy, such as placing an escalating blanking template, rather than offering empty threats for not using an edit summary. In the long run, we'll likely have better (and quicker) results. Best regards, Cind.amuse 20:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You might want to read my comments with a bit more care before accusing me of making empty threats. All my comments relating to blocks has to do with his/ her edit warring and disruptive editing, which DID eventually result in a block. Assumption of good faith extends to other editors' talk pages. Drmargi (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly no accusation is intended, my apologies if the intent of my comment has been misimplied. This is not an indictment of your editing practices, but rather support offered, which may assist you in receiving better results in the future when encountering a disruptive editor. My comments have been presented, based on a misunderstanding of policy, indicated on the above referenced IP user's talk page.( use of edit summaries is not applicable to policy.) ( failure to use edit summaries is not a blocking offense.) The talk page shows that you have made threats to report another editor, based on his lack of edit summaries. While use of edit summaries is important and valuable within a collaborative community, the use is not required, as determined by the community. The community provides for a single-level notification, rather than escalated user warnings, for failing to use edit summaries. You have indicated that continued lack of edit summary use would result in an ANI report. Use of edit summaries is again, neither required nor a blockable offense. You have also presented a misunderstanding of WP's blocking policy. The IP user was not blocked earlier, due to lack of process for that result. See also, when to report. The escalated process at this link would have resulted in a block, following just one act of disruptive editing and a report to AIV. This was never done. Overall, this IP user is a fairly new editor of four months. While it is clear that the editing was disruptive, some of the responses this editor has received have been inaccurate, based on a misunderstanding of policy. Responding to new users with excessive force (i.e., misapplication of policy, threats, and warnings using bold/all caps and not in accordance with policy) can discourage them from editing in the future. While I fully believe that your communication with this other editor has been offered in good faith, you might consider suggesting editing standards and practices; and presenting reasoning, based on community guidelines and policies, rather than visually yelling and offering threats to other editors. A report to ANI or AIV for failure to provide edit summaries would be fruitless, essentially, an empty threat. Please note, the IP was blocked for vandalism and abusing multiple accounts, rather than failure to use edit summaries. While it is clear that the user's edits were disruptive, failure to use edit summaries is not applicable to vandalism. You can find additional information about the blocking policy here. Here is a list of multi-level user warning templates. You may also be interested in utilizing Twinkle for addressing vandalism. Again, my desire in contacting you is not to present an indictment, but to offer guidance which may present better results in your interaction with other editors in the future. If you are not able to receive this offer of support at this time, it will be in your talk page history for future reference. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you ever need assistance or have questions in the future. If you have concerns regarding my communication here and effort to offer support, you may notify others, here. Best regards, Cind.amuse 05:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a fine old adage about leading a horse to water. Your intent appears to demonstrate what you see as your superior knowledge, and in so doing, to make me feel as stupid as possible. A short course in human nature would teach you that unsolicited "support" tends to result in behavior opposite that desired. I reiterate: your reading of my comments is erroneous, and your advise based on your own misunderstanding of what I said. I have no interest in using the ANI. Rather, I consider this discussion at an end. Drmargi (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

CSI work

Thanks for your diligent work keeping the CSI: Crime Scene Investigation article tidy and clean. Your efforts are awesome! _Talk 13:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure! And thank you for the kind words, particularly coming as they did after the exchange above. Drmargi (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Luka Kovac's wife and daughter

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

Re: Meanwhile

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

Southland

Why must you insist on separating the airing dates amongst the NBC and TNT runs in the infobox? All other television shows on Misplaced Pages list the original run dates from beginning to end, regardless of whether a program was cancelled and then picked up by another network. Freshh (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Because it's accurate. What other articles do (and I doubt you've surveyed every one of them, so avoid using all) doesn't, by default, govern what is done with this one. As you gain more experience, you'll realize that lock-step uniformity doesn't work for this project. Drmargi (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Delinking of "well known" locations.

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

John Carter (again)

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

Any thoughts?

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

Please discuss

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

The Next Iron Chef

If you feel that describing the contestants for Season 4 using full sentences rather than sentence fragments, please discuss this change first on the article's Discussion page. Do not simply revert another editor because you disagree. Thank you. --Crunch (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, come on! This is about wounded feelings and some old grudge you can't get past. Those additions are wordy and add nothing; the don't need discussion. And WATCH IT with the accusations of bad faith. Your judgment is a bit compromised where such things are concerned, but it's time to get over whatever it is you're still clinging to like a life raft. Drmargi (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Awesome, thank you! Kevinbrogers (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! It was woefully overdue. Drmargi (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Broken link in Abby Lockhart

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

Episodes are rarely shot where the are set; nothing special about this instance.

Hi, Re your recent revert of a reference addition to CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (season 4), I wonder if you could have a quick look at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television Replacement of individual episodes with redirects to season pages and then understand why I am currently face planted on my keyboard :) Scillystuff (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw the reverts you did to all the redirects, and am on your side. Ideally, WP:BRD recommends you discuss when you revert (I could have, too, when I reverted a few, but thought I was dealing with vandalism until much later), but that ship has sailed. Really, the original editor should have discussed the edits before ever making them -- there's bold and then there's a change of this magnitude that's potentially very controversial, as bare and stubby as some of the articles are. Not smart. On the other hand, the little edit I just reverted didn't make sense, but if it's a means to an end, I'm happy to talk it out here. Now, get your face off the keyboard and carry on! Drmargi (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I must admit it was mostly laughter :) I only made the one revert to the Jackpot episode redirect, Spidey104 reverted all of the others and then JDDJS reverted them back into redirects (they both now have 3RR warnings). I copied the reference out of the stub article into the season guide and then you reverted that change. Just for a moment it all seemed absurdly funny. I know the edit I made just didn't fit in the plot summary, but without an individual article it is a little orphan Fawnskin with no place to go. I didn't know that the Las Vegas desert exteriors are actually shot in the Santa Clarita area, as I live in Hampshire (the old one) and it's not big on desert. When I found the Jackpot location info two years ago I thought it was notable for being in CA (ha). Oh well. Scillystuff (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere to Hide

I have that movie and the plot summary on that movie is incomplete. That 1987 movie is rarely seen on tv and I don't know what should write on the plot section on it. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Your hyperlink goes to a disambiguation page. Which version (year) of the film are you referring to? That will help. Drmargi (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the hyperlink. You should have the year of it now. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd fill out the summary so that it's more complete. If you're familiar with the film, you know what needs to be there. You could also add a cast list or description of the characters. Take a look at a few other movie articles, and you'll get a good idea of what's usually done. Drmargi (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Right. I should be able to start working on that movie tomorrow or the next day. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I was able to fill out the plot summary on Nowhere to Hide and got to close to be accurate as possible. What do you think? BattleshipMan (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Project Accessory

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

Mystic River

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

Talkback

Swarm 04:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Downton Abbey & Debrett's

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

There's already a discussion, and link, on the article talk page. Please check it out. Drmargi (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Restaurant: Impossible

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

Hawaii Five-0 info

Does that stuff really belong in the episode summary? --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 05:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know what you mean. Drmargi (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Your edit restored one of the two unnecessary lines. The other I didn't know if I should've removed it. However, seeing as though you later removed them entirely, it's now a non-issue, so sorry for bothering you. :P --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 21:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that out after I backtracked and saw what happened. I'm not sure how it didn't all revert the first time, but that's what I meant to do, and must have made a mistake. Drmargi (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Pan Am (TV series)

There's a current RfC at the talk page for Pan Am (TV series) - would you mind taking a look and possibly commenting? Thanks, Lhb1239 (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I responded, although I'm not sure how pleased with my response you'll be. But it's honest. Drmargi (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

"Please read Jo on how and when links are used" ?

I appreciate (a lot!) you keeping an eye on the Restaurant:_Impossible page, but I'm rather confused by your edit summaries reverting my link addition. Could you expand on what you meant by this edit summary? What, or who, is "Jo", and what does it have to do with appropriate external links? JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That should say "up". My iPad's spell checker occasionally decides it knows better than I do, with some peculiar results. Drmargi (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hah. No worries. It did prompt me to re-read WP:EL, and I (sadly) agree with you that the link is borderline. Your thoughts on my (somewhat tentative) suggestion of a "subject's responses" section (on the Talk:Restaurant:_Impossible page) would be gratefully appreciated. I will probably wander off into the distance, and may not check-in again for a long time, however. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI

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

Tis the season

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

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec11}} to your friends' talk pages.

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

Burn Notice.

I got the Information about Season Six from Bruce Campbell. Bruce Campbell plays Sam Axe in Burn Notice. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthSeeker123 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.bruce-campbell.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=560

I see your point but I was there. I guess the pilot and he confirm it. Bruce Campbell was blown away that I knew so much. He even ask me how I find out about it. I told him a lucky guess. If you are all thinking that I am making stuff up, why should I even waste my time trying to help Misplaced Pages? Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthSeeker123 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a matter of you making stuff up. It's a matter of our being unable to take your word for it. This isn't a fan page, and the evidentiary standard is higher. The forum you cite verifies he made the appearance and a little of what was said, But it doesn't verify the content you're attempting to add. Drmargi (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Downton Abbey

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

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

Disambiguation link notification

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

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

A Good Day to Die Hard (2013)

Hey, someone created a page of the upcoming fifth Die Hard movie with the year on the title. I think the year should be removed since I don't think there are any other links that are titled A Good Day to Die Hard. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone took care of the problem regarding the year on the title link to A Good Day to Die Hard since they found out it was unnecessary. BattleshipMan (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on West Wing series table episode#

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

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

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

List of iCarly episodes

There's a debate going on at Talk:List of iCarly episodes#Sixth season regarding how to distinguish the beginning of a new season. I thought you'd be interested, and I'm having a little trouble explaining my position. If we don't agree, that's fine as well, I just thought you might be able to provide some insight into this. Thanks! Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a show I watch, but I'll have a look in and see if I can help. --Drmargi (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Top Chef Season 9 Contestant Progress

soooo..... I realize I probably edited that section a bit too rashly and checked the history afterwards to see that a previous similar modification didn't make the cut. However. I really think it is misleading to not include ALL contestants in the list of contestants, even those who were eliminated in episodes one and two. If nothing else, the labels at the top should be renumbered to correspond to episode numbers as putting a 1 above a column for episode 3 is misleading. just my thoughts. new to big article editing in wikipedia so feel free to crush me. Abbey (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to crush on you -- have a little faith in people! You are right about the top numbering; I shouldn't have reverted that, but didn't think about the difference at the time, so chalk that up to force of habit. As for the rest, there's a discussion on the talk page for the show; why not jump in and make your feelings known? --Drmargi (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You know, i visited Txikito in NYC owned by Alex Raig, it's a tapas bars, and she serves basque cuisine, under what authority do you have to discount what i write, as for sawyer, i read his greenhouse restaurant page, he likes to do organic cooking, he prefers to make items grown within his own region of Ohio, you seem to discount me quite a lot, marge, what gives?

So? Check the message I left on your IP page. We need sources, and your word doesn't work. Moreover, we don't add the specialization until the episode is broadcast, and then based on how the chef is described. Please stop forcing the edit and be patient until the episodes run. As, please do not edit another editor's comments as you did above, and sign your posts with four tildes. Drmargi (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You're a doctor and you didn't google her name, it's a basque name. you want a source, www.txikitonyc.com see who the chef is, i google the chef names to know their speciality before they appear on the show, don't take out her flag icon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mktriton (talk • contribs) 06:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not my responsibility to Google and check your unsourced edits. It's your responsibility to provide reliable sources that they are accurate. You are basing your conclusions about Chef Raij on the food at one of three restaurants she and her husband own. We go by how she describes it in her pre-battle interview, which is contemporary Spanish, and that's what goes in the table. You will save yourself a lot of disappointment and hassle if you stop trying to anticipate what the show will do, watch it, and edit based on what we're told there. The article is about the show, not the chefs. You're going to continue to have the problems you're having with these edits until you read up on how to edit and how to provide reliable, verifiable sources. --Drmargi (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Top Gear

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

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

Leverage in Portland and WP:OWNership

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

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

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

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

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

Copyvio

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

About Touch TV Canada Premiere date

Please Look this two page http://eztv.it/ep/32703/touch-s01e01-hdtv-xvid-lol/ http://www.globaltv.com/touch/video/1+++1++3/video.html?v=2190118105&p=1&s=dd#touch/video Qa003qa003 (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You can also view GlobalTV microblogging https://twitter.com/#!/global_tv . The official website of why there is a picture that premiered in March may change the plan did not change the information on the official website, but whole sections of the official website has been watching the first episode.Qa003qa003 (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Here it is

Here is the table that you wanted to update.

Here's a hint, just so it's clear. Your new Rizzoli item goes at the bottom of the table.
Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Brian Bergstein (Jan. 24, 2007) Microsoft Violates Misplaced Pages's Sacred Rule The Associated Press. Retrieved on 2008-09-03.
2. Nancy Gohring (Jan 23, 2007) "Microsoft said to offer payment for Misplaced Pages edits" IDG News Service. Retrieved on 2008-09-03.
3. Nancy Gohring (Jan 24, 2007) "Microsoft's step into Misplaced Pages prompts debate" IDG News Service.