Talk:Proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery by Paramount Skydance

Moratorium discussion

What the actual fuck? Mere week later, approved-level editors have started adding the same content, quite sloppily might I add, a mere week after Day Creature kindly did their part. I'm Sorry Not Sorry, but it's getting near impossible to WP:AGF over this piece of information and it is looking more and more like a disinformation campaign parroted by pro-merger sources in the press that this acquisition has been approved by "all [major] international jurisdictions" (when even Türkiye has only approved it just now, but somehow missing from the table) or something ever since Ryan York pointlessly added the column in the table vide this diff several months ago. And now, editors HollandJack2002 in this diff (battery a week after the very overdue removal) who hardly summarises their edits who built up on re-addition by *relatively* more responsible editor RichardDevon3451 in this diff less than a whopping week later. And boy.. The hurry to do it so, that they all end-up rather quickly copy-pasting the deleted plaintext with little to no (lazy) variations in their phrasing and placement [which they're only able to do because it's not a BLP matter for the falsehood to get scrubbed from the edit histories]. Anybody well versed on WP:INDIA-related articles, even WP:WPMEDIA areas of it on this site knows enough that misinformation reigns supreme not just because of the systemic issues owing to which many legacy sources aren't deemed as reliable enough for the WP:RSP by far more level-headed editors, but even on those locked pages on South Asian events, misinformation is trafficked in over the most mundane of claims by choosing to say more or bend what the inline citations for it are stating. WP:WINARS when it comes to the subcontinent, indeed. As should have been well evident by now, I'm fed up wasting tens of minutes to hours of my time and worse, wasting my energy on playing whack-a-mole against this apparent campaign. I propose there must be a crystal-clear moratorium on adding any India-related regulatory information till better sourcing could be provided, and for those in love with that particular Mlex entry about Brazil, the way to do that would be the quote the precise passage and “India” in the inline-citation template. Since this cluster of editors (quite a few of them must have evaded my attention to go unmentioned by me to have their chance to offer rejoinders across any edit request created by me) are all failing basic WP:BURDEN requirement, there's no need for an WP:RfC in plurality support to impose that moratorium on all editors for this article and for that matter, any other article mentioning this deal sitewide, certainly the ones approved to edit the article. If there's a formal way to do this, may somebody please chip in? Especially if it's not easy or possible to do it from a temp account. —~2026-44633-54 (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2026 (UTC) Updated 09:35, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-44633-54 this certainly is the best piece of whining content I've seen on this talk page in months ! ❖ ⚜ 𝕽𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖗𝖉 𝖁𝖊𝖊𝖗𝖆 𝕽𝖔𝖞 𝕯𝖊𝖛𝖔𝖓 ⚜ ❖ 09:54, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@RichardDevon3451: I gather that's all you are gonna submit as your explanation, then? Some idiosyncratic term which is not even a slang? Appreciate you judiciously exercising your "rejoinder". —~2026-44633-54 (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-44633-54

see buddy, unlike you I think before adding something especially in a scrutinised page like Wikipedia filled with wannabe mentalists.

your whining that I added some crap I dont even know about. In my defense, in the early stages I've contributed alot than u have I believe that and I have brought many changes so i think its a safe guess I know what im doin with the article.

the only thing I got from ur pathetic rambling was that me or some people have added certain foreign countries to the approval table.

If some lass is gonna add a table that includes UK, USA or Canada or even EU that's fine it means the merger on this page is focusing on markets where the merger has most impact.

but someone starts putting in China or even Brazil then you know this page is gonna focus on the merger on the global basis, besides its not every 160 countries around the world.

a neat representation is like Asia major markets like India and China, then Oceania has AUS or NZ then South America has Brazil and more. i dont have much information about African Entertainment Media markets so i will not comment on that. Middle East and North Africa too have say UAE or Saudi Arabia.

I hope your idea can understand that the world isn't just Europe, UK and North America. That's just racist and u really should be monitored.

Wikipedia is a worldwide platform, not your whitewashed agenda page.

if you dont want the countries table remove it country with a summary rather than a table cuz ur ego can't handle 3rd world countries being listed too.

WBD is an American multinational company.

Paramount Skydance is an American multinational company

Wikipedia is a international website.

golly

❖ ⚜ 𝕽𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖗𝖉 𝖁𝖊𝖊𝖗𝖆 𝕽𝖔𝖞 𝕯𝖊𝖛𝖔𝖓 ⚜ ❖ 07:13, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

@RichardDevon3451: My, Lord! This is quite a lot of contravention of WP:AGF here since it's unlikely that anybody level-headed who read all of the 3 sections across these 2 discussions can possibly come away with the conclusion that what I'm doing is to promote more WP:WORLDVIEW here since it's exactly the reverse of what I really want and was pointing out as a bad thing. Your wall-of-text on your user page makes sense, now. In spite of your aggressive and confrontational replies aimed personally at me, I hereby put my hands on your shoulder and tell you that what you're seemingly here is to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. And my friend, that's gonna increasingly put you here firmly WP:NOTHERE spot. What I expected your lot, is simply to adhere to WP:V, and seeing you, especially WP:VNT aspect whenever y'all copy-paste with[out] little modification here and there to blindly restore poorly-sourced stuff about India. Y'all are failing to do that basic job while persistently restoring the content. Hope you at least go and learn from at least all of my hyperlinks in this reply, if not before. And I also reiterate, your activities are not limited to a single table, I mentioned that as an origin point since Ryan York was the one who apparently introduced that falsehood to begin with. It was a cursory note over me having tracked the very origin. To wit, there's a great reason why you don't see the mention of India on the article covering Redstone masscomm Empire's acquisition by Skydance Media-led consortium. Here's hoping I've used suffice Indian English for me to get through to you, now. —~2026-44633-54 (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-44633-54

the heck you mean Indian English?

all I see is a WP there and another stupid WP here

Your being pretty racist?

sorry not sorry

❖ ⚜ 𝕽𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖗𝖉 𝖁𝖊𝖊𝖗𝖆 𝕽𝖔𝖞 𝕯𝖊𝖛𝖔𝖓 ⚜ ❖ 12:26, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

@RichardDevon3451: That's more than enough! Your conduct throughout this discussion objectively qualifies for not just being reported, but even severely sanctioned upon. (Nevermind how ironic it is, given the very first para of your user page self-pitying screed.) But instead of going into yet-another hassle over your misconduct, I'm letting other senior editors decide and.. Choosing to disengage entirely from you. Don't reply to me again. —~2026-44633-54 (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-44633-54

Racism, Personal Attacks, Prejudice, False Accusations and Bullying.

you really are a piece.

what could've been a worthwhile discussion you decided to bully me and other worthy editors because of your racist agenda.

and don't tell me who I should message and who I shouldn't.

as an Indian i atleast have free speech, oh white supremacist.

thanks, fun meeting ya

❖ ⚜ 𝕽𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖗𝖉 𝖁𝖊𝖊𝖗𝖆 𝕽𝖔𝖞 𝕯𝖊𝖛𝖔𝖓 ⚜ ❖ 01:48, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Leaving the personal remarks aside, the underlying issue seems straightforward: does a reliable source explicitly support listing India in the approval table? I suggest discussing only that evidence and keeping the conversation civil. ❖ ⚜ 𝕽𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖗𝖉 𝖁𝖊𝖊𝖗𝖆 𝕽𝖔𝖞 𝕯𝖊𝖛𝖔𝖓 ⚜ ❖ 03:08, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@RichardDevon3451: 1-for-2 additional replies: While I can't be certain about your exact motives in going ahead to post these not 1, but 2 replies in the span of 1½ hours comprised of tu quoque falsehoods and myth-making (especially if regressing to the conduct you have already been sanctioned for in your relatively short period of activity on this site*) after my parting message explicitly warning you to cease and desist engaging with me but, at least it certainly further betrays your unrepentant ignorance of how process on this site works [even to evade accountability through any WP:UNINVOLVED editor i.e. WP:GAME]. My own personal sense of self is not tied to the welfare of this project given my experience here in spite of, so rest assured, I won't be the one bothering to report you no matter how many manoeuvres you make in the name of “free speech” or guilt-trippy “redressing of WP:WORLDVIEW being challenged” with voluminous and frankly, repetitive WP:PA as your rationale. *Therefore, it's well evident whether your suspicious body-of-text can be taken sincerely in light of, or not. I reiterate, there's no evidence, let alone proof, that my engagement with you is gonna help the discussion, least of all your own future on this site. So I urge you, the final and last time, to stop replying to me. You may not [properly] see it [yet], but that might end up helping you when you inevitably do get reported by somebody else sometimes down the line. And yes, I shall deal with your rejection of this plea by continuing to reply pointlessly to me differently going forwards, lest there be any doubt. —~2026-44633-54 (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@RichardDevon3451: you should know that Indian English is a variation of the English language, and we have the {{Use Indian English}} ENGVAR template here on enwiki for it. This article should probably use American English, and is tagged with the {{Use American English}} template, but there is no requirement to use American English on the talk page. Editors are free to use any English variety that they want on talk pages. No comments on the rest of this conversation. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:01, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Closing this as  Not done. It's unreasonable to expect anyone to read through this wall of incomprehensible text. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:01, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

The table is not pointless at all. It represents regulatory approval across all major consumer markets, markets with more than $1 trillion in consumer spending. A merger requires the approval of regulatory bodies in the major consumer markets. As it stands, the merger has been approved by all major consumer markets. Ryan York (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@Ryan York: I said “column”, not “table” as a whole. The wording was inaccurate, granted. I should have said ‘row’ but even with the former, that doesn't lend itself to the idea that I was referring to the entire “table”. Nevermind when I specifically linked the diff directly instead of simply citing the diff ID for partaking editors to go fetch. Hope that clears all reasonable doubts. —~2026-44633-54 (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. The reason I removed some of the rows was because people started adding every country to the list. Keeping the list limited to major markets makes it shorter and more accurate, since companies generally prioritize getting approval in those markets first. Turkey simply hasn’t been part of the broader discussion surrounding the regulatory approval for this deal. Ryan York (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@Ryan York: Read it very very carefully, please. As for the Türkiye of it all, I don't believe India is — either. —~2026-44633-54 (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

1. This is ineligible for WP:3O, as more than two editors are involved.
2. Even if it were only two editors, as well-put by Deacon, "It's unreasonable to expect anyone to read through this wall of incomprehensible text".
3. Neither of you has covered yourselves in glory in terms of civility and the lack thereof. I would tell you to take this to WP:NPOVN instead of WP:3O, but I would not be surprised if the scrutiny there would land both of you in trouble with the community/admins.
4. @~2026-44633-54, you have stated that you "used to be an editor here". Given that you are engaged in ranty, expletive-ridden, aggressive walls of text, you are making it appear likely that you might be evading detection, sanctions or previous blocks. I highly suggest that you stop engaging in this sort of behaviour, and I would suggest that you read through WP:SOCK, and in particular WP:SCRUTINY, WP:LOUTSOCK, etc.

Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Hey @غوّاص العلم

Thanks for taking the time to look at this. So.....Fair enough, I can see why WP:3O wasn't really the right place given how many editors ended up getting involved. BBbbbut......Looking back, I also agree the discussion got far more heated than it ever needed to [silly] , and I wasn't blameless in that. I'd rather not take this any further or turn it into another noticeboard discussion to make things anymore worse.

I'll leave it here and move on with my work on a positive note.

Thanks again for the advice and good luck to all the parties involved.

~RD

❖ ⚜ 𝕽𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖗𝖉 𝖁𝖊𝖊𝖗𝖆 𝕽𝖔𝖞 𝕯𝖊𝖛𝖔𝖓 ⚜ ❖ 13:05, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Happy editing غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@غوّاص العلم: With all due respect, joining in on the pile-on by WP:ASPERSIONS on another editor is extremely not done. And regardless of whatever issues you must have with me, as well evident by you snapping on another temp editor you evidently presumed to be me, you objectively can't be neither the judge nor even jury on any matters involving me whatsoever unless I get along with you. I've therefore posted my message on your user talk page to do the needful accordingly. And your patronising and low-key threatening reply (to say the very least) here is only more proof of why you are not the suitable respondent. I urge you to refrain from WP:WikiBadger (argument ad odium) further and au contraire, correct your [latest] mistakes as required. —13:13, 31 August 2026 (UTC) ~2026-44633-54 (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2026 (UTC) Updated 13:19, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Good luck غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@غوّاص العلم: I don't believe in them. —~2026-44633-54 (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

3O Response: Procedural decline. There are clearly more than two involved editors here; 3O is generally for requesting a third opinion. If you are unable to reach a consensus, you are welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@Doniago: Just to be clear, when you're referring to “clearly more than two” involved editors, does it count every single person who has replied, or both RichardDevon3451 and improper-3O contributor غوّاص العلم who has been previously involved with me on a non-content related user talk page skirmish but not here? Because from where I stand, it's quite clear that the principal involved editors here [for quite some time] are only me and RichardDevon3451. —~2026-44633-54 (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

If one needs to raise questions about whether someone is a valid participant in the discussion, and they're not clearly a sockpuppet or obvious vandal or what-not, then 3O is no longer the proper venue for requesting dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@Doniago: Pardon? I'm not getting the gist of what you're aiming to convey here. As for “valid participant”, I hope you're not begging me to cite the precise conduct policy of 3O which “Ghawwas” has been in breach of? So I hope if you're aiming to be yet-another one to encourage escalation instead of de-escalation by WP:ASPERSIONS on me to ensue yet-another WP:Wikidrama over a simple matter of WP:BURDEN for whatever motives, I hope you'd at least strike the relevant parts of your impugned contribution[s] at the very least, if not encourage “Ghawwas” to undo her own contributions related to the 3O here and elsewhere for her own good instead of mine. —~2026-44633-54 (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll refer you back to my original response. If you're unable to reach a consensus here, please pursue the other options available at WP:DR. DonIago (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@Doniago: Welp.. That's super unhelpful for an apparently human instead of customer service response. But regardless, I have already clarified why consensus is not required here per the policies I cited and above all, the approval of my exactly ~2026-44633-54 (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2026 (UTC) Updated ...fulfillment of my exactly same edit requests which are getting basically man-reverted by the following. What I want here is that plus scattered WP:EDITWAR by multiple approved-UAL editors wrongly citing source[s (one at a time)] to WP:SYNTH to stop, at Best. But if you're refusing to redirect to the appropriate venue for that, no worries since I have already listed this on what I think would be the relevant NB for this scenario days ago. Anyways, buh-bye! —14:47, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

What a nice thing to hear. Have a great day. DonIago (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@Doniago: Not sure where apparent WP:SARC ranks on the conduct scale but in case the edit summary was not enough of a clue, that was a butt-clicked reply whilst I was drafting. I've edited the reply to finish it off as I intended. Apologies for inconvenience caused, if any. —~2026-44633-54 (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2026 (UTC) Updated 15:09, 31 August 2026 (UTC)