How about you actually discuss the Chief Resident/Attending matter instead of blindly reverting my edits? You say Carter achieved Attending status in season 8, but he is never referred to as an Attending in season 9, only as Chief Resident. Which leads me to the logical conclusion he's still CR and not an Attending. If you're just going to ignore my counter-arguments without responding and keep reverting my edits it's going to make you look like the unreasonable one in this dispute. Jerkov (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You persist in reverting on the contention Carter just automatically was promoted to Attending when he finished his residency. First, he did two years as Chief Resident (S8 and S9) which is unusual, but can happen in reality (per UCLA medical school, the model for County, where Joe Sachs is on Faculty.) Second, you don't then automatically promote to an attending physician position. You have to be hired by the hospital and the medical school (as faculty) after a national search. You saw this with Abby's job hunt, and with Neela's. This was never done with Carter, and he clearly was a shift (not an attending) physician when he left for Africa. We only knew he'd finally become an attending when he magically got tenure a couple episodes before he left (we'll leave aside the gross inaccuracies in that.) This is now a warning. Any attempts to continue to revert his attending dates to anything earlier than 2004-2005, which can be accurately sourced by episode dialogue will be treated as both edit warring, something in which you persist in engaging, and as vandalism. There is a consensus process for conflicts you refuse to use, leaving no alternative but to treat you as a vandal, which opens you up to being blocked from editing. Drmargi (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to your message on my talk page, your basic theory regarding how a doctor becomes an attending physician is wrong. When a doctor completes medical school he/she is not automatically and/or by default, an attending physician. Residency is the end of training. A fully trained doctor must then GET A JOB AS AN ATTENDING PHYSICIAN. Attending is not just an automatic promotion; it's one of several jobs a physician can take (versus starting a private practice, or working as a research fellow, as Doug Ross did.) It's the same as a teacher who finishes training by student teaching. They don't then by default become a teacher - they have to get a job to be a teacher. Until then doctors and teachers just have a license to do the job.
If you insist Carter was an attending in S9, then provide a source he was - you've been reverted by more than one editor based on the actual events in the show. It's not in dialogue, and it's NOT automatic that Carter became one, and the lack of an attending position was one of the reasons Carter chased after Luka to Africa. Moreover, an attending physician who at a teaching medical school has a faculty position, neither of which Carter ever had until he magically morphed into one in S11.
You've provided an unsourced description of the attending job, and from that, concluded Carter automatically became an attending. THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN. Carter's affiliation with he hospital from S1 to S9 was as a student, then as a house officer (residency), still under the supervision of the medical school. When he finished his residency, his affiliation with the hospital ended. You have to be HIRED as an attending, something Carter himself said didn't happen in a scene late in S9 talks about with Abby. You saw Pratt, Morris, Abby and Neela all go through the hiring process, but not Carter. Please STOP making edits based on your faulty understanding of what the attending physician position is, and what happened on the show. Drmargi (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much to add to that, except that Carter is openly referred to as Chief Resident in late s9 (2003). Also, an additional reason why Carter could be CR for more than one academic year is that he attained the position later into the year. Remember, Chen was briefly CR in early s8 before she quit and Carter was offered the position by Weaver. Jerkov (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am again warning you to STOP reverting the edit identifying Carter as an attending physician from 2004 onward. The next revert may result in your being reported for vandalism and/or edit warring. Drmargi (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have again reverted your removal of Locum Tenens as a job descriptor and addition of a series of racial slurs used by Romano from the infobox for this character. The nickname category is designed for regularly used nicknames for characters, such as "Mike" for Michael Westen on Burn Notice. They are not designed to chronicle offensive names used by Romano in an attempt to harass or demean Luka. You might want to discuss them in the narrative part of Romano's article, but they have no place in Kovac's infobox. Continuing to add them will constitute vandalism, and may lead to your being blocked from editing. Likewise, removing the description of Luka as a Locum Tenens (the professional term for a moonlighter), his first position at County, may also be viewed as vandalism and result in a block. Drmargi (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are now repeatedly reverting the use of the complete title Attending Physician for Kovac despite a request for consensus. The full, correct title for is attending physician, not attending. That's the shorthand (quick-to-say) version. It is NOT redundant to both describe his position as physician and his title as attending physician. It's the same as a professor at a university. His/her position is professor AND his/her title is professor. The shorthand is incorrect. DO NOT REVERT again. Drmargi (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because of your repeated edit warring on this page, you have left me no option but to take action. I have requested page protection for it similar to what your edit warring regarding John Carter required, and will proceed as needed from there. Please work within the system, provide edit summaries, observe the WP:3RR rule and seek consensus before making edits that are clearly controversial. Drmargi (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. SoWhy 08:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Josh, you would do well to attend to this. You've restarted your edit warring already. Please stop before we are forced to take further action. Drmargi (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's it Josh. You leave no choice, and you will be reported for edit warring. You have entirely failed to edit in good faith, and are assuming ownership of ER in totality. This has to stop. Drmargi (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to look up the criteria for edit warring, then look at the history for the Carter page. I think you'll find it tells a very clear tale about your edit wars, as do the histories for about five other pages. Drmargi (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you reverted my removal of the "significant" episodes section of the ER navbox. I did so because I did not see any objective criteria being used for inclusion or exclusion of episodes from that list. Are you using any objective criteria here and, if so, what are they? Let's please continue this discussion at Template talk:ERnavigation. Thanks! --Hnsampat (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I've responded to you on my talk page, below where you responded. --Hnsampat (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. SoWhy 08:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
