User talk:197.87.143.164

New: I have been "warned" again. Like a naughty schoolboy called into the Head's office. Ooh.

But, to be serious, I have a problem, my allergies. I'm allergic to revisionist nonsense. Many of my "disruptive" edits(which got me an all-encompassing two-month block) are because I can remember.

I can remember the Rolling Stones being Number One in every magazine and newspaper, and being Number One on Top Of The Pops.

I can remember reading Target novelisations where the same wording was used to describe "both" the Master and the "War Chief".

I can remember a time when time itself was linear. If something achieved a certain number of sales in Year x, and it continued to sell, then 25 years AFTER Year x, the Year x number would have become obsolete and irrelevant as far as current sales numbers are concerned.

Worst of all, I can remember the way things used to be. When Neil Young and Led Zeppelin were "Progressive", and Motley Crue were "Punk Rock". When there were only 2 renegade Time Lords in Doctor Who. When everyone knew that the Beatles' first British Number One single was Please Please Me. When Slade had 7 British Number One singles altogether. And when sales numbers were actually able to increase over the years, rather than forever remaining frozen in time.

And I remember when people discussed things, weighed the evidence, rather than just lashing out because "This is what it says!"

But, I must have imagined all of that. Because things must have always been the way we are told now.

Norman Stanley never existed. 19th Nervous Breakdown never reached Number One on the British charts. And for some releases, sales figures must remain as they were in 1999. So, some things get retroactively altered to fit current conventions. While others must stay as they were decades ago. Why?

How was my edit 'disruptive'?

I have been blocked from editing Wiki!

For "disruptive editing"!

And what was this "disruptive editing"?

Well, you may recall the 1998 song Music Sounds Better With You. Yes, 1998. 26 years ago. Well, in 1999, 25 years ago, I repeat 25 years ago the folks at Billboard magazine reported that as of 1999, all of 25 years ago, Music Sounds Better With You had sold 140,000 copies in the USA. Perfectly true in 1999. And, a helpful editor added that 1999 link. Here it is .. [1]. Good job.

But, the song has continued selling, as songs do. And in 2024, it finally reached 500,000 US sales, and a Gold Record from the RIAA. And so, wanting to keep Wikipedia updated, the figure was correctly updated. Here is the RIAA link [2]. Again, 1999 was 25 years ago. What was true in 1999 is not necessarily still true today. And a sales figure from 1999 is obsolete to the tune of a quarter-of-a-century today.

So, what's the obvious, logical thing to do? Update the sales figure. Link to the new RIAA figure. And, remove the obsolete figure that was correct as of 1999, but is obviously not accurate in 2024. And so, that was done. The RIAA obviously did not present a Gold Record because there had been 140,000 sales up to 1999. No, they presented a Gold Record because there had been 500,000 sales up to May 30, 2024.

So, what's the problem? A Wiki editor reported me for "disruptive editing"! Yes, really. Apparently replacing a sales figure from 1999 with a sales figure from 2024, in 2024 is "disruptive editing". And said editor reinstated the twenty-five-year old sales figure in the article with just one comment on their edit...Why? Why? Because it's not 1999 anymore. It's 2024. That's why. Look around. Bill Clinton isn't the POTUS. Shows like Friends and Frasier are no longer in their original first runs.Saddam Hussein is not the President of Iraq. Evander Holyfield isn'tthe Champ. And, a sales figure that was relevant and true in 1999 is a quarter of a century out-of-date. That's Why.

It is absurd that I have been blocked. if my edit was "disruptive editing", then the article on The Tonight Show should state that Jay Leno is the current host, the article on the FIFA World Cup should list France as the current Champions, the List of British Prime Ministers should end with Tony Blair as the current Prime Minister, and the Walter Matthau article should list him as still being very much alive. 197.87.143.164 (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You would not have been blocked over one edit to one page, and I recall repeated warnings that you blanked. Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this is not A correctly formatted unblock request, if you had not blanked the block notice you would have seen a link that would taken you to the correct request. Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT blanking. It is updating. Figures change and increase over time. You are "warning" because someone is trying to update articles. Which includes removing obsolete figures and statistics. Why are you clinging to numbers from bygone years? Something that was correct 25 years ago today is not correct anymore, if the RIAA says so. Just as I hope people won't be clinging to 2024 statistics in 2050. How is a figure from 25 years ago worth including in the "Certifications and Sales Figures", when the 2024 VERIFIED figure is more than three times that amount? Insisting on reinstating obsolete numbers is the REAL disruptive editing. Shame on you.

Blanking your talk page, which is where warnings are placed, not in article space. I am surprised you are confused by what I meant. If you had taken heed of those warnings, or at least tried to find out what you were being warned about, you might not now have a block. And I remember reverting one of your edits (twice as I recall) which failed Verification (which you admitted). Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But "warnings" for UPDATING INFORMATION. What is this? If something says "Certified Gold by RIAA in 2024", then the correct figure is 500 000. Why the hell would anybody want to retain the number of 140 000 from 1999? Saying "By October 1999 it had sold 140 000" IN THE ARTICLE, with link, is one thing. But keeping the quarter-of-a-century old figure IN THE CERTIFICATIONS TABLE, and WARNING and BLOCKING somebody for trying to correct it is preposterous. "Oh, in 1999 140 000 was the correct figure. Therefore we need to keep the 1999 figure of 140 000 there forever, even after the number 500 000 was independently verified 25 years later!" That makes no sense at all. The way it reads now makes it look like the RIAA certified it Gold in 2024 for sales of 140 000 in 1999. Guess the paperwork was very slow going through. Disgraceful.

August 2024

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 11:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

197.87.143.164 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have no idea why I was blocked, what my "disruptive edit" was. There doesn't appear to have been a report, just a block. If I'm getting blocked for 2 months, it would be nice to know what it was for. 197.87.143.164 (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your edits and attitude are generally disruptive, and I see no indication here that will change, so there are no grounds to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What "generally disruptive" edit caused the block? I am yet to understand that. 197.87.143.164 (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request 2. This comment [3] is not a mark of neutrality.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

197.87.143.164 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been told I am "disruptive", yet the "disruptive" edits appear to be a)updating old(sometimes decades-old) music sales figures, and deleting the obsolete figures. b) pointing out that as a character in Doctor Who is never referred to as a "Time Lord", he should not be listed as a "Time Lord".

Decline reason:

You need to accept that you have been disruptive. PhilKnight (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

And altering sourced content to something the source does not say (when you are not just removing the sources). Which you have already had pointed out to you, which oddly you removed and then claimed no one had said anything to you. Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I did not report you, I warned you (which you have also removed). Over the addition of unsourced content, not any changes to any sales figures). Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be

[4] Here's a video breaking down how Time Lords didn't exist in fiction until 1969, and the serial The War Games. Before that Doctor Who [5] (Yes, that is/was his name) was a human time traveller, who invented a timeship. That's why those TV Comics and World Distributor Annuals say so. However, it was later changed. No argument there. But at the time Dr Who was a human from the future who invented a timeship. Which means anyone "from the same place" as Dr Who was also a human from the future. And now I am blocked for 2 months. 197.87.143.164 (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And here's something disturbing... I stated that, at the time of the 2 relevant serials, only the Doctor and his companions used the word "Tardis". The Time Meddler himself never uses that acronym for his vehicle.

This ties in with Susan coming up with the acronym.

But, I was apparently mistaken because VICKI(one of the Doctor's companions) uses the word "TARDIS" when referring to the Monk's vehicle!!!! If that stands as "proof" of anything, I am deeply concerned.[6].

Only the Doctor and his companions used the acronym Tardis.

You're wrong. One of the Doctor's companions used the acronym Tardis!! 197.87.143.164 (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can it get worse? Of course.

The person who insists on putting square pegs in round holes added "Reliable Sources". One [7] explicitly states:

The Meddling Monk

One of the Doctor's own people - though not referred to as a "Time Lord"

So, his/her Reliable Source is saying the exact opposite of what it is being used for.

Next up, we get..

This is the first story in which another member of the Doctor's race appears, although they are not yet identified as Time Lords". It also states that ...the Monk, is another time-traveller from the same planet as the Doctor.

Oops!

Not only is this an Unofficial book, published by a fan, and thus highly questionable as a WP:RS, but here's the goof..

Transcript from The Time Meddler:

STEVEN: Look, I take it you both come from the same place, Doctor?

DOCTOR: Yes, I regret that we do, but I would say that I am fifty years earlier. Now when are you going to answer my questions?

Not the same "planet", the same place. Only someone who has never seen the serial would believe "planet" to be accurate. So, The Programme Guide IS an UNRELIABLE SOURCE. 197.87.143.164 (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC stating he is a Time Lord is proof he is a Time Lord. Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But you are correct, neither story does so (by calling him a Time Lord), so I have removed them. Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you want to have a discussion, do not remove responses as you did here [[8]]. Per the above, this might also be seen as disruptive. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The comment I replied to has been heavily edited after I replied to it, this can also be seen as disruptive. Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't. I had typed 99 per cent of it, and then tried to post, only to have "edit conflict". So, I c&p'd and posted it exactly where it was. 197.87.143.164 (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC is not an unreliable source. Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the BBC explicitly states The Meddling Monk

One of the Doctor's own people - though not referred to as a "Time Lord" (this term wasn't coined until the 1969 epic, THE WAR GAMES) - The Monk meddled with time, or tried to at least.

So, the BBC says that He was not referred to as a Time Lord. 197.87.143.164 (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Er, not referred to as means not called, not "not is". Again this same logic can be used to say there Doctor is not a tIME lORD. Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And, using your logic, the Doctor was ALWAYS "The Timeless Child", Clara Oswald was ALWAYS the one who told the Doctor which Tardis to steal, and Time Lords could ALWAYS change gender. Therefore, it's an anomaly that everyone from Hartnell through Capaldi was the same gender. And when the Doctor says that he invented the Tardis, he's wrong. When Susan says that she came up with the acronym "Tardis', she's wrong. Because YOU said so, and you have your (questionable) modern websites to tell us so! When Dennis Spooner created the character of the Time Meddler, it was obviously as a gender-fluid Time Lord from the planet Gallifrey! The reason we never saw the Monk again is NOT because he didn't fit into the new format of the show, but obviously because he died in the Last Great Time War. Or else, he's still "stranded on an ice planet"...

Faced with the facts, SlaterSteven has departed. He/she constantly made short, provocative edits, which kept resulting in Edit Conflicts when I tried to post actual links and quotes. Now, faced with the facts, he/she has gone. 197.87.143.164 (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People do not have to stay glued to their computers/device until you decide they can leave. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor was flooding this talk page, making unfounded claims. When I posted RS to the contrary, he/she disappeared. And it was those exact RS edits that were labeled "disruptive edits", resulting in my block. 197.87.143.164 (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And he/she was indeed "staying glued to their computer", constantly making hollow posts on this talk page, long long after I wanted him/her to leave (me alone). Turns out the way to stop them flooding this talk page was to show how his/her "Reliable Sources" didn't actually say what he/she claims that they did. 197.87.143.164 (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Doug Weller talk 08:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

WP:EDIT WAR - October 2024

Please stop edit warring at Peter Pratt (where you keep removing well-reference information without explanation) or you may be blocked again. If you have a constructive suggestion to make, please make it on the Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted other edits. But, the source doesn't even say what the article claims that it does. The source lists different versions. The article says actors. That's two very different things. As an example, William Hartnell, Richard Hurndall and David Bradley are three different actors, but they ALL played the same version.

Pratt is said to be the first to play the second version of the Master(and even that is very contentious), but he is nowhere said to be the second actor to play the role. On the relevant discussion page, I linked to a RS reminding you, AGAIN, of Norman Stanley.

ani

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.