User talk:Docta247

Archives

Welcome!

Hello, Docta247, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! —arf! 07:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, and welcome to WikiProject Musical Theatre!

Thank you for adding your name to our project membership list! Our goal is to make Wikipedia the foremost compendium of musical theatre to be found on the internet: hope you're up to the challenge! As a project member, you might like to add the project membership userbox to your user page, and maybe introduce yourself on our talk page.

If you haven't done so already, please add our main project page to your watchlist and perhaps browse our page of useful templates. When you have a moment, please take some time to review the article structure for musicals, which, after months of collaboration, consensus has decided as the best structure for articles on musicals. If you're curious about where to start, we've gathered a few suggestions in the Project to do list and in our tasklist.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the project talk page or on my talk page. Again, welcome and happy editing!

— Music Maker 5376 13:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grey's Anatomy Networks list[edit]

Limiting the list of Grey's Anatomy#Networks to English language only is arbitrary and perhaps WP:BIASed. Wikipedia is not a TV guide. / edg ☺ ★ 21:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we're not a TV guide, and I would further say they shouldn't be there. You should know I reject any accusations of bias, which I think are rather unfair. Surely if you're reading an English-language article, you'd be primarily interested in an English-language version of the show. If you wanted it in another language, you could check that article. Please consider being more careful when throwing things like that. Docta247 06:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "accusions of bias", you may be treating this word differently than me. I wasn't trying to imply something about you personally. If it was taken that way, you have my apologies.

I'm specificly referring to systemic bias that favors english speakers, per WP:CSB; it's not official policy, but it is a commonly-held value, and is consistent with WP:BIAS. There are actually several reasons one would read the english-language article besides looking for information on the english-language broadcasts, one of which is that en.wikipedia.org has more articles, and another being articles in different languages contain different details (cf. ast:Anatomía de Grey). It is worth noting that many contributors to english Wikipedia do not speak english as a first language.

All that said, I still favor deleting that section, and said as much in Talk:Grey's Anatomy#Networks. This has tended to be an unpopular action in other articles, and I'm looking forward to finding out how the Grey's editors handle it. / edg ☺ ★ 11:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An apology really isn't necessary. In fact, I apologise if I worded my reaction too strongly. What is important is that the word "biased" has very strong connotations, which is why I suggested caution. Back on the topic, I honestly don't think that only dealing with English language airings of the show on an English language article has any systemic bias with reference to WP:CSB. Even if people not using the English language were using Wikipedia as an EPG, which I've said I agree with your position on, why would they check the English language article? Docta247 13:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I'm saying is "english language only" is a false standard to limit the growth of this section. Given that option, my position would be either it all stays or it all goes. / edg ☺ ★ 13:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Futurama Roll Call[edit]

Hello, you are currently listed as a member of Wikiproject Futurama though you may be inactive. This seems to be the case for many members so I am sending this message to help renew interest in working on these articles. If you are still interested in working on Futurama related tasks please visit the wikiproject page to see how you can help. If you have time please also join in the recent discussions on the talk page, in particular I would personally appreciate comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Futurama#A new proposal for episode articles. Thank you for your time, hopefully I didn't annoy you too much. If you would not like to receive messages such as this in the future then consider removing yourself from Wikipedia:WikiProject Futurama/List of participants. Happy editing. Star dust 8212 02:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House[edit]

I just wanted to make sure you know that a consensus is not a 1 or 2 vote majority. Billywhack 12:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007[edit]

My warning towards you had absolutely nothing to do with my recent RfA nomination. It was simply a matter of you disregarding my concerns about the house article. Instead of discussion, you reverted and deleted the Original Research template I placed in the plot section. Such practices can constitute vandalism. It's not a slight at you. It just is. I apologize if you thought I was marking you as a wikivandal, which you clearly are not. However, the warning was issued nonetheless as your actions can be construed that way. Just because you put "good faith" in the edit summary doesn't absolve you. I'm not trying to be offensive or anything, just stern. I wanted discussion, not reversion. Wisdom89 15:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the warning since it is apparent that you were acting in good faith. Perhaps I was being hasty. I should have left you a message instead of a formal warning. My apologies. Wisdom89 15:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Grey's Anatomy[edit]

Oh sorry! I didn't know. I was patrolling the recent changes page and some IP address deleted the whole section so I thought it was vandalism. If you had logged in, I wouldn't have done anything. I reverted my revert now. — *H ippi ippi 11:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, here I am, jumping to conclusions. According to the history page:

You removed controversies section
Anon user reverted your edit
The same anon user removed the section again - This is where I come in
I reverted, thinking that it was vandalism.

So 5mins ago, I thought you were the anon user in step 2 lol. Sorry — *H ippi ippi 11:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected ER as well. Garion96 (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPMT Roll Call and COTM[edit]

WPMT Roll Call and Collaboration of the Month!

You're receiving this message because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Musical Theatre. Please post at the talk page to let us know if you're still with the project. Feel free to post on the talk page about what musical theatre-related work you're doing or to weigh in on the current discussions on the talk page.

Nominations for our Collaboration of the Month are currently being accepted. What should we focus on for the month of November? Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks much, folks! Happy editing! — Music Maker 5376 04:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Futurama revival[edit]

Hello. WikiProject Futurama is being revived. Since you are listed as a participant here, you have received this message to make sure you still are. If you like to help update the WikiProject, please discuss here. Hopefully you can stay with us and continue to work on Futurama-related articles. GamerPro64 (talk) delivered by MuZebot 06:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]