User talk:The Missing Hour

This is The Missing Hour's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Welcome

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. If you want to, drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself. You can sign your name on talk pages by using " ~~~ " for your username and " ~~~~ " for your username and a timestamp.

Welcome is a good place to start.
Wikipedia:Tutorial runs through all the basics.
Wikipedia:How does one edit a page gives editing help.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style gives formatting info.
Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines tell about the principles we operate on. It's important, but don't try to read it all now.
Wikipedia:Help covers a broad range of useful topics.
Wikipedia:Help desk is a place to ask questions.
Wikipedia:Show preview explains how to double-check your edits before saving.

You can also feel free to ask me a question on my talk page. I'll answer if I'm here! Happy editing, Howie ☎ 22:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DWO

Hi, Missing Hour. You're right — Wikimarruttman recreated Doctor Who Online twice, once after I had warned him. I've protected the page now with the {{deletedpage}} template, so he won't be able to do it again. "Cruft" in this context is an abbreviation of "fancruft", a Wikipedia jargon term for fannish subjects of little interest to non-fans. There's a pretty decent explanation at Wikipedia:Fancruft.

Thanks for alerting me to the re-creation. We should probably keep an eye on Wikimarruttman to make sure he doesn't try to recreate the page under a slightly different title (such as Doctor Who online). If he does, I'll block him. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Hoo

Mum says she'll put in some more information herself. I still have to figure out how to put piccies in^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cercia (talk • contribs) 22:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Doctor Who Fan Club

Hi - you wrote: It clearly breaks the CSDa7 guidance in that it is about a fan club for a UK television series and the article has no external sources to backup its notability claim. There is no such detail to A7 - nothing that mentions UK telvision shows and nothing saying that notability must be corroborated before speedying. A7, to quote WP:CSD, is for an article about a person, group, company, or website that does not assert the importance of the subject. If there is any assertion of notability, corroborated by external sources or not - it goes through AfD, not spedying. There is a strong claim of notability for this club within Doctor Who circles - it was responsible for tracking down three lost early episodes of Doctor Who (very few, if any, other clubs can claim the recovery of even one episode). Grutness...wha? 23:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the reply. I'd suggest that this is an article about a "group" in the A7 sense as it is a "fan club". Also, the recovery of two episodes makes up a single sentence in an otherwise unremarkable article, therefore shouldn't it be merged with Doctor Who fandom and, more importantly, given sources (newspaper references or DWM articles)? --The Missing Hour 07:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get your point. I still think it would be better to go through a full afd for it, though. Actually, i thought I'd started a procedural one after restoring the page, but it seems I forgot :/. It definitely needs a thorough rewrite and sourcing, but it's probably still saveable. This was NZ's biggest science fiction club of any kind for quite some time. Grutness...wha? 11:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad idea, though I don't have the information to do it myself... I'll drop a note to the Dr Who WikiProject, see what they can come up with. BTW - it seems that one anon has been adding speedy tags to all of New Zealand's science fiction-related groups - I've managed to catch two others. Luckily NZ's fan community is small enough that only a very small number of organisations would warrant an article. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare project collaboration

The Shakespeare Project has begun a collaboration to bring its main article, William Shakespeare, to FA status. If you wish to contribute, please review the to-do list on its talk page. Let's make this article an FA! Wrad 15:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Shakespeare Collaboration

The Shakespeare Wikiproject is starting another collaboration to bring Romeo and Juliet to GA status. Our last collaboration on William Shakespeare is still in progress, but in the copyedit stage. If you have strong copyedit skills, you may wish to continue the work on that article. Members with skills in other areas are now moving on. Improving Romeo and Juliet article will set a standard for all other Shakespeare plays, so we look forward to seeing everyone there. Thanks for all your help with the project. Wrad 20:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare project - New collaboration debate

The Shakespeare project's first collaboration has ended in success, with William Shakespeare reaching FA status! Congrats to all who chipped in! We also had success in our second collaboration Romeo and Juliet, which is now a GA. Our next step is deciding which article to collaborate on next. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare#Next Collaboration to help us choose. Thanks. Wrad 04:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlet

The Shakespeare Project's new collaboration is now to bring Hamlet to GA status. Wrad 00:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The WikiProject Doctor Who Award
		For contributing to most articles refering to dr who Pathfinder2006 (talk) 07:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter, March 2008

The Space-Time Telegraph

The WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter

Issue 1

March 2008

Project News: We have five new participants: Sm9800, Seanor3, T saston, Type 40, Jammy0002.; One editor has left the project: StuartDD.; The Doctor Who portal has expanded to increase the number of selected stories to 33.

Articles of note

New featured articles

None

New featured article candidates

Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) (FAC)

New good articles

Delisted articles: None

Proposals: A proposal for changing the layout of the episode pages is under way here.; A discussion about the formatting of the cast lists in episode pages is under way here.; A discussion to move United Nations Intelligence Taskforce to UNIT is under way here.
News: The Torchwood project has become a task-force under the project's scope.; The Torchwood series 2 finale airs on 4th April, and the 4th series of Doctor Who will start to air on 5th April.

For the Doctor Who project, Sceptre ^(talk) 19:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have received this letter because you are on the newsletter recipients list. To opt-out, please remove your name.

Romeo and Juliet collaboration

Greetings! The current Shakespeare Project Collaboration is Romeo and Juliet. This project is currently going a thorough peer review and copyedit before moving on to FAC. The link to the peer review is Wikipedia:Peer review/Romeo and Juliet/archive1. Have a look! « Diligent Terrier Bot (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Shakespeare notice

There is currently a discussion going on regarding the project's policy on how information on characters should be represented in articles on Shakespeare's plays. Please take part by clicking Talk:Romeo and Juliet#Character Analysis. Further context, if needed, can be found by scanning the two previous talk sections on the page as well. Sent by §hepBot (Disable) at 04:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC) per request of Wrad (talk)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]