User talk:Drmargi - Wikipedia

Hi Drmargi How come you reverted my edit on Better Call Saul and saying this "Graphic" is not needed. Every other show pretty much has both. If it only needs to be one, why not this one, as it's better and shows all of the viewers for every episode. It's both easy and simple. It's perfect but for some reason you have a problem with it. It seems that you are just a fanboy who does not want people to see that her favorit show is declining and probably will get cancelled soon. I hope not, cause I like the show. But why are you hiding the facts for people that come to this page to see why that the show is flopping, and when it started to flop? AffeL (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2016

I'm curious, why is this not information about the series 7? It could be both about the show as a whole, and for that particular series. Hzh (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have a few hypothetical questions for you. If a writer creates a character and that character acts like a schizophrenic, is that character schizophrenic even though the writer didn't create the character with that intention? If the character was based on people with schizophrenia, shows symptoms of schizophrenia but wasn't labeled a schizophrenic, can that character be schizophrenic?. Can characters take on a life of their own independent from the writer's original intentions? Does the writer have the final word on their characters? 75.82.68.41 (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

The writer is the final word. --Drmargi (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I should say Drmargi reverted edits that indicate Eliot had Dissociative Identity Disorder on Mr Robot here when the author said that Eliot suffered from Dissociative Identity Disorder. Hzh (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please enlighten me on the season overview box policy. 75.82.68.41 (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

It appears that you do not wish to discuss the matter when the discussion is opened. Since the edit clearly is related to this series as it refer the series itself, the edits is self-explanatory why the edit is relevant. You are the one who reverted an edit that is clearly related to the series, but you choose not to explain why you reverted it when requested. I have already said why your revert is wrong - that it was in the main article has no bearing on whether whether it should be on that series, you reasoning was wrong. Now you are reverting an edit claiming I should explain when it is self-explanatory - it is the presenters' last series on the show. I should say now that I have seen this behaviour from you, dragging things out and refusing to answer when requested. You saw fit to give a "reason" when you reverted, but choose not to in the discussion. Please give an appropriate reason in the talk page. Do not use revert as a weapon in lieu of discussion. Hzh (talk) 08:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please note discussion is important if you want to revert edit per WP:BRD, so far you are only reverting without contributing anything substantive in the discussion, in fact nothing you said made sense. Please remember that you are the one who made the revert, so far you have given no reasonable explanation for the revert. Hzh (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think it is approaching the point where you are becoming disruptive. So far you haven't given a valid reason, and you should not revert a good faith edit simply because you don't like it per WP:BRD (and please note also the need to discuss the edit, giving reason, etc.). So far you are blithely ignoring the guidelines, trying to get your way by reverting. Hzh (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Reply