User talk:Drmargi

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

Kate Beckett[edit]

You might care to cast an eye over the latest changes to Kate Beckett. There are a couple of issues but I don't have a lot of time right now. --AussieLegend () 08:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Someone added a ton of new content yesterday, and the article is already bloated. --Drmargi (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
And then, today, there was this, which removed the episode link and added citations using |airdate=, which has been deprecated for over three years. Yesterday's edits included a "kill count" section, which I've now removed. --AussieLegend () 05:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I was just looking at that. The big sections on the boyfriends detailing every kiss are pure fancruft. There's far, far too much detail about her mother's murder in two (count 'em) sections. And let's see. What else... Oh, all her ranks, which were never detailed on camera, and are entirely original research. We need to get at this article with a machete. BTW, do you watch Castle? --Drmargi (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a need for the "Awards and decorations" section either. Unless they've been mentioned specifically in an episode, or by reliable sourceS, they shouln't be mentioned. --AussieLegend ()
Let's deep six them, then. I'm with you. --Drmargi (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

A courtesy[edit]

Drmargi, I'm doing this as a courtesy and meant to be as friendly as possible, as usually we've been in good standing with each other, but I find your behavior on Mr. Robot (TV series) quite unacceptable and edging on WP:OWN. You've deleted reliably sourced content multiple times (and including a revert when a separate editor readded it) based on your preference and nothing else. I am not making controversial edits, these are not edits being reverted by anyone else but yourself, and telling me I need consensus to readd content that is reliably sourced and was in the article for several months before you decided to delete it, is frankly, ridiculous. You use tactics such as "status quo" to revert to your preferred version, even though this is not new content being added, but content that was in the article for several months; and stalling tactics such as "discussion is progress, do not revert", when you show no signs of compromise, and again, somehow that means your preferred version is what goes in the article. I plan on bringing this to WP:ANI, which is something I don't want to do (who wants that?), unless you undo your latest revert. Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Anything you say to me applies to you as well, given your persistence in forcing an edit despite the "discussion" on the talk page I foolishly believed was operating under the terms of WP:BRD, and your WP:IDHT approach to the show's writer, creator and executive producer's clear and unambiguous statement regarding the show's one and only genre. I gather you're younger, and come from a generation born to the internet, and consequently, accept anything published online. The single feature that makes a critic a critic is that they deal in opinion, not fact. They can be wrong, and frequently are. They can call Mr. Robot a comedy if they want, but it doesn't make it so. The producer has been quite clear about that. We went through this with Elementary, when critics erroneously (Get it? Root word error) claimed a character's first name was other than it was. And they were wrong. Their source can be reliable as hell, such as the LA Times, but a media critic can, and frequently is, wrong. And that's the case here. Like or not. --Drmargi (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
But your assertion that they're "wrong" is your opinion. A show is allowed to be more than one genre, and Esmail calling it a techno thriller does not override anyone else being able to classify it as a separate genre. Psychological thriller is not replacing techo thriller, it's an addition. Unless he literally said, "No, it's not a psychological thriller", then sure I'd agree; but that's not the case. Template:Infobox television states, "Genres must be reliably sourced", which they are. Beyond multiple reliable sources, there's the USA Network page and the official Facebook page for the series which literally has "Genre: Psychological thriller". I don't get it, why are you so against this? Psychological thrillers deal with themes such as identity, reality, a character's mental/emotional state and use plot devices such as unreliable narrators and plot twists–all elements seen in Mr. Robot. But seriously, why do I have to keep defending it, it's sourced. You were also recently reverted by another user, clearly consensus isn't against it. Unless other editors were reverting me left and right, I'd back off, but that's not the case. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)