User talk:Drmargi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Merry Christmas[edit]

Notice Of Dispute Resolution Regarding International Co-Production[edit]

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

Hey hey, I wanted to bring this to your attention as a matter of urgency, best wishes. Twobells (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing urgent about it. I see nothing new, and editors will participate/respond in their own time. Drmargi (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
It is not for you to respond to a DR but the administration, thanks. Twobells (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Au contraire. More reading you need to do. --Drmargi (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry! I had no idea you were a DRN moderator, well, you can hardly moderate your own malicious edits can you? Twobells (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm the current coordinator over at DRN, where this case is pending. Just to avoid any misconceptions which may be pending here, I just want to point out that participation in moderated content dispute resolution at Wikipedia is always voluntary and no editor is ever required to participate. Having said that, however, I would strongly encourage all participants in this dispute to join in at DRN. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC) (Not watching)
What DRN? He's calling a discussion on the show talk page DRN; I've received no notice of anything further. This editor has a poor command of terms and policy. --Drmargi (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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


TG US S5 v S4[edit]

Stop changing the season 4 episodes to season 5. The official History and BBC webpages show that season 5 of Top Gear USA has yet to air. I don't care if any other little websites think it's season 5 or even, in fact, if the productions codes indicate they are part of season 5. They are not. If History - the makers of the bloody show - say it's season 4 then it is season 4. No ifs or buts. It is season 4. Please stop changing it. Mvanterati (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The network website for the BBC is irrelevant; the American version of Top Gear (which is not called Top Gear USA) is not made by the BBC. The History Channel website has been inconsistent. We the most recent episodes premiered here, they were identified as Season 5. Why the difference on the website? Who knows; the change was made well in to the season's run. Check the press releases for the season and you'll see it was identifies as season 5 with season 5 production codes.
I suggest you use the talk page for the series for any further discussion, that you do so civilly, and that you remember that the standard here is consensus, not who is the bossiest. Bully-boy tactics and telling me what to do will get you nowhere. The standing version remains until you can gain consensus to make the change. --Drmargi (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

4400 TV Series[edit]

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

(Redacted) Anyway, please stop deleting legitimate citations and entries, the 4400 tv series was a joint international co-production as reflected by the citations, what is a co-incidence is that one of the citations confirm BSG 2004 was a Anglo-American co-production! If you continue to delete legitimate entries I must report you. You stated on the 440 tv series page 'Once your edit is reverted, it stays at status quo and the burden is on you to discuss and gain consensus on the talk page.' You seem to be mistaken, it was you who reverted long-standing edits and citations. Twobells (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Twobells: Your claim that Drmargi is the one "who reverted long-standing edits and citations." is clearly incorrect. A review of The 4400's edit history shows that the content being reverted was only recently added, by you.[1][2][3][4] Drmargi was quite correct in this edit summary. You both need to discuss the matter on the talk page and gain consensus for the changes. --AussieLegend () 13:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I see you know each other and have weighed in defending reverts by a bad faith editor, your behaviour speaks for itself. Drmargi took it upon themselves to follow my edits and revert without debate, I think that also speaks for itself. Why was she suddenly on the 4400 article page reverting my edits? Essentially Drmargi checked my edit history, came on to the article and reverted my edit on a page that has for a very long time had consensus on the fact that the show was a co-production and consensus was reached by many editors, not just two partisan editors who show bad faith. It is inexcusable for a editor to follow another around reverting their edits seemingly maliciously. Twobells (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Legitimacy, whatever that may be, is an evaluative standard, not an absolute, and not the criterion by which we evaluate content. You are taking media sources that report collaboration between a British network and an American network, and interpreting that The 4400, among others, is somehow an international co-production. You've tried this with several productions, each time clearly failing to gain any consensus for your edits. Instead, you pull supposed Wikipedia policy out of thin air, you threaten to "report" editors at every available opportunity, you abuse warning templates, and you ignore your own editing warring. You clearly lack understanding of basic editing principles and community expectations for editors. You're here to push a POV, not to improve this encyclopedia. You need step back, learn basic editorial principles and policies, stop threatening every time you're challenged and adopt a collaborative attitude, or you will find yourself blocked over and over again. --Drmargi (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
You still don't get it, you are employing Original Research trying to fight legitimate citations both media and author-baased that's just not on. When you talk about 'consensus' you are talking about you and one other who are attempting to block any other editor editing the article. Only at the very last have I had to report you due to your constant 3RR reverts and stubbornness in not meeting consensus. As for collaborating with other editors, my history shows that until BSG 2004 and meeting editors with essentially NPOV positions we've always worked well together, that cannot be said the same for you according to your talk page. You have been very quick with criticisim and have failed time and time again showing Good Faith. In closing I find it astonishing that you of all people shout that others are pushing POV, jsut why won't you allow perfectly reasonable citations being added to the article? You have yet to show a single legitimate reason as to why these citations and edits cannot be included. As for 'blocking', once the admin understood what was going on that block was reverted. Twobells (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Seriously? First, you were unblocked because you gave an admin your word that you would not edit war again. So what did you do? You found a new article, one that's been on my watch list for some while, and created the same problem there as on BSG, then when reverted, started a new edit war. Blocks are not reverted. Editors are unblocked if they address their behavior sufficiently to satisfy an admin that they will not repeat the behavior. Given you now have four blocks for edit warring and have started yet another edit war at The 4400, it's clear that's not something you're prepared to do. At no time did the admin act on your block because they "understood what was going on." That's not how unblocking works.
Frankly, I'm increasingly weary of going in circles with you. Your sweeping lack of understanding of policy, your inability to differentiate a co-production (a point not in dispute) from country of origin of a production (the whole issue, and one you can't seem to grasp) and your intractable clinging to a fixed position make discussion pointless. Moreover, I am heartily weary of your continuous personal attacks, baseless accusations and lack of civility. Therefore, I am closing this discussion as well as the one above, and request you not post any further on my talk page. --Drmargi (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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


Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion in which you are mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring by Twobells. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Twobells reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: ). Thank you. AussieLegend () 13:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series). Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, THAT DR/N. Thank you for notifying me, something Twobells failed to do. --Drmargi (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

For your enjoyment[edit]

Thanks for your edits on BBCA DM. I shared a story from my dim and distant here. Thought I would share it with you as well. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 18:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting! Are you a member of the loyal order of Friday Fisheaters, too? I'm about as lapsed as they make 'em, but entirely identify as Catholic. (There are words for that, I know…) --Drmargi (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Oops missed this reply. I subscribe to one of the main tenets of Marx (Groucho that is, not the German fellow) that I can't join a club that would have me as a member :-) MarnetteD|Talk 03:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Elementary[edit]

There appears to be a misunderstanding here. I made the Episode 11 summary in good faith and kept it at a length that complied with the page as short summaries seem to be preferred. I don't believe you had any grounds to delete my summary, I have broken no rules on Wikipedia and don't appreciate being accused falsely of doing so. If you have the time, please quote sources to back up your claim? As I can guarantee you won't find a single website on the internet with a summary like the ones I write. I myself have done quite a lot of summaries on Wikipedia in my time here, more recently I did virtually all of the Season 4 Falling Skies summaries, and the Season 2 Sleepy Hollow ones. Thanks.86.15.195.205 (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Jeez, take a pill, and entertain the idea someone might have made a mistake. IP editors routinely add copyvio summaries, and get reverted. Your edit summary when you restore the edit covered the issue; it isn't necessary to berate me here, too. Your summary is back, I edited it for grammar (there were several errors), and we're good. If you want to be taken seriously, register for an account. --Drmargi (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Apologies, feel free to delete this section. I mostly made because I thought you may revert my reversion and it was basically to cover myself if I get accused of edit warring, the rules say to discuss stuff first. Anyway I'm quite happy being an IP editor and have been for almost 3 years as my IP is static, I don't edit for recognition, merely to help out when I can. Thankyou. 86.15.195.205 (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)