User talk:AKR619

In-universe articles
Hi, just looking at some of your recent edits. No in-universe articles should have the phrase (or similar) X was referenced in Story name. It should read something like:
 * Disneyland was mentioned by the Navarinos as their destination. (TV: Delta and the Bannermen)

Additionally, all in-universe articles are written in the past tense. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 14:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't know when it was mentioned in the serial Delta and the Bannerman or by whom, just that it was mentioned in the serial. --AKR619 00:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sir Hat-a-lot
About the article on Simon Callow you edited, and inserted this paragraph:

Around 1994, Callow was working on the movie Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls (which he is probably best known to the American audience as), his co-star Jim Carrey was offered the role of the Eighth Doctor during filming, Carrey had never even heard of Doctor Who until he was offered the role. While he was being offered the role, the producers told him it was a highly succesful British television show, so Carrey approached Callow about what he should do. He merely said "I've been offered the role of the Eighth Doctor in the revival of Doctor Who" and Callow cut him off and told him to take it. A bewildered Carrey then responded that he would probably have to work in television and Callow answered "F*** a movie career! You're being offered the chance to play Doctor Who! You don't pass up on an opportunity like this! Are you f***ing mad?". It was at that moment Carrey realised how big a deal Doctor Who was, so he turned down the role as he felt it would offend Doctor Who fans for someone who isn't a fan of the show to play their sacred part."

Much of this needs referencing, so if you could add to the page where this information comes from, I'd appreciate it. Bad Wolf Bad Wolf 19:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Tenth Doctor
Similar to the previous message, I'd like to know where you got the information in this edit from. I've never heard that David Tennant was anything but the first choice to play the Tenth Doctor. I've started a discussion at Talk:Tenth Doctor. Please join in! —Josiah Rowe 04:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Citing sources
Hi, when adding information to real world articles please be sure to cite your sources see Manual of style - Citation for more information. If there are no sources no one can check the information to verify that it is not vandalism. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 16:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of pictures?
The images enhance what are generally long articles. They generally lift the readability and level of instant understanding for the user. --Tangerineduel 14:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * AKR619, I'm just wondering why you removed most of the pictures from the articles for the first Doctor and the seventh Doctor? I've restored the images but wonder about your reason for removing them? --Raukodraug 13:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Because they make the page far too big. --AKR619 23:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As Tangerineduel pointed out above, the images serve an aesthetic role in brightening up the pages and keeping them from being a simple black text on white background affair. Since this is on the web and doesn't need to be edited for print space, the physical size, or "bigness", of the article isn't really relevant.  Why do you see the article size as a concern?  --Raukodraug 04:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the consensus of a discussion at Panopticon: Removal of multiple images from pages the images for the First Doctor and the Seventh Doctor have been replaced. Thanks  --Raukodraug 20:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for Adminship
I'll direct you to Tardis:Questions and guide to requests for adminship to start with.

Though your recent article Muppets has a few issues in that it is very much in and out of universe mixed throughout it. Information that is "trivia" should be worked into the article rather than as separate section within the article. There should be citations (sources) for the claims that David Tennant and Jon Pertwee are Muppets fans.

The list of people who contributed to Muppets and Doctor Who is lacking punctuation separating them (and could probably do with separating into sections by how they contributed. Possibly with links out to the Muppet Wiki's specific articles (on those shows, episodes etc).

Also much of the article seems to have been copied from the Muppet wiki without citation of that wiki being a source.

Also your edit summary "(Oh by the way, STUFF YOU ADMINS OF THE MUPPET WIKI!!! We should indefnite block all of them)". Doesn't suggest a balanced point of view, should you need to deal with problematic or difficult editors.

There is also the slight issue of you being blocked (from what I can tell with various user names) across the the Muppets wiki.

I bring this up as looking through your edit history there have been instances where information has been added and not cited (I left a note on your talk page a couple of months ago) but there are edits through your history where information has still been cited without a source. Which appears to be part of the reason why the Muppet wiki reverted some of your edits. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 08:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Muppet Wiki
Hi! I saw that you copied a lot of the text from the Muppet Wiki page about Doctor Who to this wiki's page about Muppets. Obviously, you're totally welcome to use that text on other wikis -- that's what wikis are all about -- but you should post a link back to the wiki where you found it. I actually wrote most of that text myself, so I'd appreciate some acknowledgement for the wiki.

By the way: "Stuff you admins of the Muppet Wiki" doesn't really count as acknowledgement. :) -- Danny (talk ) 07:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't learned to link to other websites yet, but if I did learn I would (I would have even linked to Muppet Wiki's Doctor Who page.). When I wrote the whole "Stuff you admins of the Muppet Wiki" I was rather frusrtated with their snubbing me when I ask for my indefinite block (which they always do, and might I say is a bit harsh( and then indefinite blocking me for using sockpuppets. Now I could understand indefinite blocking me for adding things like the Muppets were going to make a version of Doctor WHo with Steven Speilberg, Steve Martin and the Walt Disney Company, because it's a huge thing and doesn't have citation. But when I was User:GreenandEasy I was making helpful contributions rather then vandalisim, I even created a Bill Murray page AFTER I asked User:Aleal if it was okay if I recreated it, because that's how serious I was to being a useful contributor, I have been a life long fan of the Muppets, ever since I was 1 year old and first saw Sesame Street (when my father looked after me by placing me in front of the TV, then going upstairs to do his work.)--AKR619 08:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 03:01: Tue 20 Dec 2011 17:03: Thu 22 Dec 2011

John Hurt
I have reverted your recent edits to John Hurt. You deliberately removed the hidden message telling editors not to make the changes that you then made. Do not remove the message again, and do not re-add the info that the message prohibits. Shambala108 ☎  15:06, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked for your recent edit at John Hurt. Not only have you, three times, added information that was specifically "forbidden" from the page, you also added a major spoiler in violation of Tardis:Spoiler policy. Shambala108 ☎  12:25, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

I did not delete that message, all I did was add explain why I redadded that great pieces of trivia (so great the user couldn't hack it that he didn't add it and decided to delete it, I bet you he'll be the first to readd the trivia once The Day of The Doctor airs...well now he might not now that I pointed it out). If you even bothered to look, you'll notice there were two hidden messages.--AKR619 ☎  12:25, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

And what do you mean I posted a major spoiler, The Name of The Doctor has aired around the world. That's like saying The First Doctor regenerating is a major spoiler or Adric dies is a major spoiler (granted those episodes have aired over 2 decades ago, unlike The Name of The Doctor)--AKR619 ☎  12:34, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

And about that three revert-edit, well, so did you but just like you I had good reason, and you would have seen that if you bothered to read the message I.

And an 8-month ban, I find it harsh, but then I read somewhere that someone put himself in the hospital for kicking himself so hard as he didn't put the so good bits of trivia on John Hurt's Doctor Who wiki page and when he was being councilled, the councilor gave him the idea of putting up a rubbish excuse. Maybe I deserve it--AKR619 ☎  12:34, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

Block
I've blocked you for six months for violating Tardis:Spoiler policy at Death in Heaven (TV story). The block is that length because you've been blocked for the same offense previously. In addition, you might want to check out Tardis:Edit summary and Tardis:No personal attacks, as your edit summary could be construed as taunting. Shambala108 ☎  15:15, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

Rassilon
Please do not re-add the info you added to the Rassilon and Timothy Dalton pages. If you have an issue with the information, start a forum thread in the proper location. And please note that I removed your message from the nomination page for User:PicassoAndPringles because, as the post clearly states, the time for nomination is over. (And I'm not picking on just you, I removed an off-topic message from another user from the same thread.) Shambala108 ☎  02:51, October 28, 2015 (UTC)

David Bowie
Hi! I don't know what is happening when you edit David Bowie, but somehow you keep adding Category:Floor 500 to the page, which should never be added to any in-universe pages. In addition, there seems to be some other wiki text added in. Please carefully re-add your desired information, then be sure to hit the "preview" button before you publish. Don't just undo my edit because that will add back all the stuff I had to remove. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  04:45, April 26, 2017 (UTC)

Block
You've been blocked for violating Tardis:Spoiler policy at Peter Davison. The block length is a year because this isn't your first offense, and, given your response to that previous block, you apparently didn't take it seriously. Shambala108 ☎  01:45, August 17, 2017 (UTC)

Can I just say how BS that ban was. To be spoiled about Jodi Whitaker's casting you had to be living...well living on a different planet. It was on the news. I strongly believe not wanting people to add anything about stories that aren't aired yet (which was once allowed years ago, I started Richard Curtis' page before Matt Smith's first season even aired), is just you moping about not adding these things first.--AKR619 ☎  05:28, December 27, 2017 (UTC)


 * Apparently you haven't learned your lesson. You've been blocked multiple times for violating Tardis:Spoiler policy, and yet you still can't understand how seriously this wiki takes the policy.


 * Unfortunately, though you've been given amnesty twice, you have chosen to ignore that "gift" and have committed a second violation of Tardis:No personal attacks in your post immediately above this one. Therefore, you are blocked for a year.


 * FWIW, your point about the Richard Curtis page is not relevant to this discussion because back in 2009 the spoiler policy wasn't as strict as it is now. Shambala108 ☎  05:55, December 27, 2017 (UTC)

Ignore them
Hey man, don't let them bother you. It's best to just ignore them, the same admin also gave me trouble too abd refused to listen to me. I don't blame you for being angry. Can join the Disney wiki if you like, the admins and users on their have more respect than the ones on here, as well as the Family Guy and American Dad wiki. Don't join those two sites either, the admin on those two sites are also abusive. If this message gets removed by the admins, than forget what they think for removing this. 24.218.78.89talk to me 13:07, December 29, 2017 (UTC)

Grammar
Hi please note that we use proper grammar on this wiki (we are trying to make an encyclopedia of Doctor Who, not texting or twittering). See Tardis:Grammar and all the related links at the top of the page. Also please note that edit summaries are not for bragging that you are the first to make an edit (see Tardis:Edit summary). Finally, vague and unclear statements are not wanted on the wiki; if you don't know that someone is the only Academy Award winner from DW, don't put "one of the few, if only"; it sounds like we don't know what we're talking about. Either research the fact or leave the statement out. Thanks Shambala108 ☎  04:16, February 25, 2019 (UTC)

Block
I had to block you due to the violation of Tardis:Edit wars are good for absolutely nothing. At Olivia Colman, you have reverted edits of other editors, including an admin, four times in a short period of time. You did it with the express purpose to brag about you being the first to add certain information to the wiki (which seems to be you main motivation for editing given that earlier you accused an admin of following the policy only because you beat them to an edit). This behaviour creates an unhealthy atmosphere and contravenes the main purpose of this wiki to be a reliable source of information.

Worse, in violating policy for your personal gratification, you failed to follow a request from an admin to research facts before adding them to the wiki. This edit of yours was immediately fact-checked and proved wrong by two other editors suggesting that this information was not hard to find.

Ordinarily, edit wars result in short blocks to stop the war itself. However, given your history of earlier blocks and the fact that your reaction to a warning from an admin this time was to add false information rather than stand down or follow her instructions, a longer block is warranted in this case. It is still shorter than your last block, due to the current offence being relatively minor.

Posting news first without verifying them is the definition of "fake news". It is not welcome on this wiki. Amorkuz ☎  09:17, February 25, 2019 (UTC)

1) I would like the other editor blocked, they should have corrected my grammar rather than provoking me. 2) I felt they were only reverting the edit because she didn't add it first, similar to how I beat her to adding information about John Hurt years ago when he made his debut in The Name of The Doctor. 3) Do you know how many actors have appeared in Doctor Who, do you know how many actors have won Oscars, I was more than happy to leave it at "one of the few, if not only" 2) Vanessa Redgrave, Jim Broadbent all appeared in non-canonical Doctor Who stories, I wasn't thinking of them, nor was I thinking of non-acting Oscars, which brings up my point for number 3.--AKR619 ☎  09:35, February 25, 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, just to let you know, your point at #2 violates Tardis:No personal attacks, which tells editors to assume good faith about other editors' posts. You accused me of correcting you because I didn't get to add it first, but I have a long history of not caring who edits something first; I prefer if something is correct, not first. I have pointed out to multiple editors over the 6 years I've been an admin that we are not a news site, we are an encyclopedia; therefore we prefer correct information that is presented in proper grammatical fashion. We do not need to be the first to post something on the internet. And your posts about John Hurt are way off; those posts violated Tardis:Spoiler policy, as well as special instructions on that page.


 * If you really want to know why your edit to Olivia Colman was removed, it was because it violated Tardis:Grammar, Tardis:Typography and punctuation and Tardis:Italics; plus you didn't bother to research one of your claims, which has since, as User:Amorkuz stated above, been proven wrong. In fact, after your third attempt to add the information, I corrected your grammar (despite your false claim in point #1) and removed the unsourced information, which was later proven wrong by several people.


 * If you come back to edit after your block, you absolutely must follow all the rules cited by Amorkuz and me in this discussion. Thanks Shambala108 ☎  14:21, February 25, 2019 (UTC)

Grammar
Hi, please make yourself familiar with Thread:122764. Also please keep in mind that we prefer correct grammar on this wiki, including the use of complete sentences, not sentence fragments thanks Shambala108 ☎  01:44, June 22, 2019 (UTC)

Reacting to edits by admin
Hi, you might benefit from refreshing Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point. In particular, when somebody deletes unimportant information you posted, you should not "delete most of the remaining article as unimportant." More generally, you should not go around searching for "similar" pieces of information and deleting them. Please leave that job to Tardis:Administrators. Amorkuz ☎  09:36, July 10, 2019 (UTC)

Block for personal attacks
Hi, to respond to your concern, yes, I saw an IP user undoing your edits. Moreover, I have already reviewed their edits and corrected those of them that needed correction. Thus, by undoing all the edits that were deemed good, you were second-guessing an admin and beginning an edit war. Please read again Tardis:Edit wars are good for absolutely nothing. In the next instance, when you feel your edits are undone without a reason, you should not undo these undoings, but instead either engage in a discussion on a talk page (of the page or of the user if multiple pages are concerned) or involve an admin and leave the decision to them.

There is, however, a bigger concern here. When your edits have been undone by another user, you immediately called them a "cyber stalker" and a "troll", even after an admin confirmed some of their edits. This goes against Tardis:No personal attacks in both not assuming the other user acting in good faith and in resorting to name calling instead of engaging in a conversation. You might want to reflect on the fact that there is no essential difference between your earlier behaviour with respect to admin edits and this user's behaviour w.r.t. yours. The main difference is that
 * in the past: you persisted more, fulfilling the actual definition of an edit war;
 * in the present: you engaged in personal attacks.

Personal attacks are completely unacceptable on this wiki. You have been warned about it multiple times. You have been blocked explicitly for personal attacks and the lack of good faith multiple times. You latest block for personal attacks was for one year. Thus, this block is longer. Amorkuz ☎  08:21, July 11, 2019 (UTC)

Block review
Thank you for availing yourself of the block review process established at help:i'm blocked.

Unfortunately, based on the fact that multiple admin at Tardis have blocked you in the past, we won't be able to establish the necessary consensus to overturn the ruling.

Twice you've been the recipient of our Yuletide block reduction. Yet you've lost your privileges within days of both block lifts — for immediately issuing another personal attack. And you've attracted blocks for other reasons. Calling someone "a troll" is indeed a personal attack. Like it says in our rules: attack the point, not the person, something Amorkuz explained in some detail on the 11th.

Meanwhile, admin on other wikis, as well as the VSTF, have blocked you in the past 30 days. And your behaviour off-Tardis this month has been unambiguously block-worthy.

We're truly sorry, because we hate it when people are blocked. But — given the number of blocks you've had, the number of second chances we've given, and your recent behaviour around Fandom — this one's gotta stick. 22:14: Wed 17 Jul 2019