User talk:Doktordoris

Welcome

 * }

August 2010
Please stop. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did to Furry fandom, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Silver seren C 21:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The above is a standard template. Now that I reconsider, I probably shouldn't have used that one. Or, at least, a lower-level one. The sexual aspect of the furry fandom is covered in the main section of the article regarding "Sexual aspects". The fandom itself is not entirely about the sexual aspects (though there are sexual aspects in the fandom, just as there are in most other fandoms). Because it is not a main part of the fandom, it is not mentioned in the lede of the article. Furthermore, "perversion", regardless of dictionary definition, is commonly regarded as negative by the general public and should not be used as a description for a group of people. Silver  seren C 21:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm okay chief.

I am not sure if I should reply to your post here, or on your talk page.

But irrespective of what the great unwashed think the word pervert simply refers to acts not considered "vanilla" by the majority.

I like doing ladies up the wrong 'un, so technically I am a pervert. ;-)

I didn't mean to upset you, or anyone. BUt I think it is important that the sex aspect is mentioned at the top of the article, it is after all a large part of the furry experience for the majority of furries (or is at least viewed that way by the majority of people), so do you not think it is worth putting at the head of the article?

Doktordoris (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am pretty sure that the vast majority of furries indeed do not consider sexuality as a large part of being furry. That said, the public's general view (as with many other stereotypes) is quite flawed anyways, and there is not much point of putting it in the top of the article since a section already exists within the article itself. Also, I'm curious to know what makes you feel that the furry fandom is mostly related to sex. GB 86 02:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Bartley Gorman article
Hi, Would you take another look at the Bartley Gorman article - I've revamped it with a stack of references. You might want to consider withdrawing your nomination for deletion. I won't point you in the direction of WP:BEFORE, but it certainly would have been useful if you'd followed it. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

hullo dylanfromthenorth, I am sorry if I failed to follow some WP protocol. I first read this page months ago, as I am interested in amateur boxing but the page was shocking. It was overly florid and read like a fairy tale. I mentioned this on the articles talk page months ago, and no one bothered to add citations. So I resorted, as I said I might ages ago, to putting the fairy tale page up for deletion.

It seems my method for getting some citations on the page and removing the wild flights of fancy the page contained worked.

I am happy with the page now, thanks dylan....

Doktordoris (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The point I was trying to make was that you could and should have looked for references yourself. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Just a note to encourage the continued use of WP:Edit summaries, even just a word or two. --Lexein (talk) 11:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * What? i have had an account for over ten years. i also speak English as a first language, unlike you I guess? why are you giving me the new member spiel?
 * and why do you insist on replacing the stupid "skull burst up" line? it makes no sense. this is an English language encyclopedia.
 * cheers Doktordoris (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hmm. You are right! I thought I saw a welcome button for you. I must have been mistaken! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

NPOV
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Wyatt Earp. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. I recommend you discuss this change on the article talk page if you feel strongly about it. Thanks. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * To address your edit, the Code of Federal Regulations did not prohibit ship captains from officiating weddings on board their ships until the early 20th century, long past the time of Wyatt Earp's marriage. See this excerpt from when that regulation came into effect. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks for your kind reply. and the link about naval captains not being able to marry people in the early 20th century. so what? saying naval captains cant marry people is very different from saying that naval, or non-naval captains can marry people. i would be more interested if you could show me the act which said that late 19th century captains could legally marry people. i am fairly sure you will be unable to. Doktordoris (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * before you reply i am sorry if i seem rude. i have real problems dealing with people. i am sorry if i seem as though i am being unjustly argumentative. Doktordoris (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)