User talk:Doctor Boogaloo/Archive 1

I see you've been here a while, but no one seems to have extended you an offical Wikipedia welcome. Let me take care of that now:

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Cheers, -- Infrogmation 5 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Brighton
Hello,

sorry if my English is not correct, I'm from nl.wiki. I have seen that you reverted my external link and qualified it as spam. It was not ment to be so. I was just enthousiast, because my daughter and her friend have been there and came back with enthousiastic stories and lots of pictures. They are both motorfreaks. Kind regards --Algont 14:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

My addition to the wiki was a valid resource...what is your reason for removing--Buddhadharma

It is certainly a valid and useful resource, if you are looking for wireless hotspots. Such information however does not belong in an encyclopaedia article. Gsd2000 00:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Brighton College
Every one of the alumni that I have added appears in the Dictionary of National Biography, the definitive guide to significant figures in British history. If the DNB considers them significant to British history then I think Wikipedia certainly should. I should point out that I have no connection to Brighton College and no reason to pretend that it has particularly notable alumni (and therefore can hardly be accused of adding fancruft). I am adding notable alumni to all British public schools. -- Necrothesp 19:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to create an Old Brightonian category, but I'm certainly not deleting the list of alumni. If the DNB says they're notable then they're notable. Wikipedia has many articles about far less notable people than these - I doubt very much, for example, whether every minor soap actor or sportsman is going to get an entry in the DNB, but we have articles about them. I also have to say that I'm a little confused about whom you don't think is notable - they all look pretty notable to me and many already have their own articles. -- Necrothesp 21:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

So, you're telling me that the definitive list of who is notable in British history is wrong? Just a little arrogant, don't you think? How on earth do you know what Wikipedia readers find interesting? Personally, I find any notable person (and they are all notable people, whether you agree or not) interesting. To claim this is fancruft or listcruft is utterly ridiculous, and is merely your own point of view. I beg to differ, as I'm sure would many others. -- Necrothesp 00:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And incidentally, this article does not fall under the definitions given in the articles you so kindly suggested I read. "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety." All these people have fame or achievement or they would never be in the DNB in the first place. They are all notable people; ergo they are all deserving of a mention. I'm not sure you truly understand the meaning of an encyclopaedia. I am most certainly not a creator of fancruft or an advocate of articles on non-notable people, but neither would I deny a mention to deserving subjects. -- Necrothesp 00:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we must simply agree to disagree on this one. I happen to believe these lists of alumni are interesting and appropriate to the article. And since I have already said that I have no connection with this school (or indeed with any others of the schools to which I have added alumni, bar one), I think you can appreciate that my interest is not merely one of getting one over on other schools. I genuinely find these lists of alumni interesting, and if I do then I suspect others do. I do not consider notability a matter of whether a modern reader may have heard of an individual, but of whether that individual has done something to be worthy of interest. I believe all those on my lists have done so. Neither do I believe that a category is any substitute for an article, since categories only include those for whom we already have articles. Maybe you are one of those Wikipedians who has a dislike of red links? Like many others, I am not. I have seen how red links rapidly become blue links - indeed, many of those I have added to the school articles have turned from red to blue quite quickly. To me, this is one of the great things about Wikipedia - how rapidly it grows. -- Necrothesp 11:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. I have no objection to separate list pages if a list is dominating an article. I created them myself for the Lists of Old Etonians. -- Necrothesp 18:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you are a brit
I hated London, spent millineum there, but the countryside was beautiful. At least the Brits admit they had an empire.

''“…in Britain, empire was justified as a benevolent "white man's burden." And in the United States, empire does not even exist; "we" are merely protecting the causes of freedom, democracy, and justice worldwide.”

''--The Editors, "After the attacks…the war on terrorism", Monthly Review, 53, 6, Nov., 2001. P 7

signed, Travb 03:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Escudomedellin.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Escudomedellin.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as db-unksource.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 15:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Coats Of Arms
Surely a town's coat of arms that has been around for hundreds of years doesn't have copyright? Gsd2000 23:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Depends. The part of the coat of arms that's been around for hundreds of years is the textual description (see blazon).  The image is a given artist's interpretation of that description, and is subject to the same copyright laws as any other work of art (and may also be covered by trademark law or laws relating to coats of arms). --Carnildo 00:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I know a legal and easy way round this if it is still an issue for you. Guinnog 01:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oooh, pray tell! :-)  Gsd2000 01:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Pastrana.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Pastrana.gif. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as db-unksource.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 14:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You have my sympathies for receiving the attentions of this bot. (I have already commented on its parentage on my talk page.) Nice to meet a fellow Caian here! --Historian 23:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Meguro gawa sakura.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Meguro gawa sakura.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 03:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Editing
Well dude, you're misunderstanding colonialism in part and I think the sentence is reductionist. Direct rule is imperfect admittedly, but as the British Raj example underscores you do not have to start actual colonies to be a colonizer. Marskell 15:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My goodness. Yes, of course, colonialism can refer to the British Raj and Canada and insofar as it refers to the former it is not synonomous with "colony-building" in the strict sense. Colony and colonialism should not be merged and the first sentence should not read as a half-done dic-def. Marskell 15:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not by me. Do see the dictionaries I've quoted on the talk page. Marskell 17:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Template User United Kingdom
Don't know if you're still interested in this, but I thought I'd let you know the issue is under discussion again (and I thought it might just quietly die in its current form!). Anyway, we're now finalising the poll page at Template talk:User United Kingdom/usagepoll and a discussion on the criteria by which a resolution can be reached at Template talk:User United Kingdom. &mdash; SteveRwanda 16:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... our vote is completely split now - if you total the different votes for option 2 and option 4 it makes 11, the same as option 3. Attempts to persuade people to move from one to the other might be seen as underhand though! &mdash; SteveRwanda 13:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip
I changed my vote thanks for the explanation. Mike Beckham 20:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Suzie Wong
 Almost everything with the spoiler tag is like that, e.g. the story of a book or a film. If you think there's a problem with grammar and organisation, you can help by improving it (and perhaps reworking). Please don't delete useful information. &mdash; Instantnood 08:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

British Empire
I am sorry if I hurt your feelings. Nevertheless you may wish to review Vandalism, which defines: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia."

Repeatedly removing content without seeking consensus comes into this definition in my opinion. Guinnog 14:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This chap needs to take a serious look in the mirror before accusing others of vandalism. Gsd2000 16:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This chap needs to take a serious look in the mirror, I suggest you get off your high horse, Furthermore, I note from your contributions that you are not active in the empire/imperialism space - whereas I am. I suggest you stick to what you know and don't spoil the broth, are all potential breaches of No personal attacks.


 * You 'demanded' that I apologise, which I did, as I certainly didn't intend to offend you by my choice of words. However, you have to accept that you do not 'own' this article, and that others have as much right as you do to edit it. The piece about Rockall is significant to the article, as it was the last expansion of the British Empire, the subject of the article, and thus noteworthy. By repeatedly deleting the info you don't want to be there, I think you may be (however well-intentionedly) making the article less good. The spirit of Wikipedia, it seems to me, would require you to improve or integrate the info into the article rather than deleting it. Please try to reach consensus in the article's talk page rather than just deleting or reverting. There just has to be a compromise here that we can all live with.


 * Please try, whether you agree with me or not, to be more temperate in the tone of your communications as well. I too regard myself as a good-faith editor of this article. Thanks. Guinnog 23:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK - so don't accuse other good faith editors of vandalism. That's what got me annoyed in the first place.  Also, you apologised (kind of - for "hurting my feelings" rather than the accusation itself) on my talk page, but at the same time again labelled my edits as vandalism on the British Empire talk page, which made a mockery of your apology.  Gsd2000 23:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. This doesn't seem to be going anywhere good. What else did you expect me to apologise for? I repeat, I am sorry for hurting your feelings by accusing you of vandalism if you feel your edits were in good faith. I still reckon what you did was pretty close to vandalism, because you subtracted valid and noteworthy info from the article where the consensus did not support it, but really, let's move onwards and upwards. How can we best incorporate this info into the article?


 * And, with all respect, maybe you shouldn't get so 'annoyed' so easily that you start being intemperate. I repeat, this is in breach of Wikipedia policy. If you expect other editors to assume good faith on your part, even when you make edits that appear to contravene the rules of this thing, you really ought to accord these others the same respect. Fair? Guinnog 23:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for yor reply. I am fine with OK, lets just leave this discussion and get onto the more important point of the article at hand and accept I will tone down my language, I do get too easily ruffled in lieu of an apology. Another thought though; if you do have strong opinions that I sincerely believe to be justified based on my education and reading then maybe you should make your specialist expertise more obvious on your user page, as it isn't at present. With only 615 edits and the information that you went to Caius College Cambridge, you could risk other people not noticing your specialist knowledge in the same way that I didn't. What is your special interest in the BE? Guinnog 00:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Falklands and British Empire
Yes, to be honest I think you are trying to own it somewhat. You're right that it doesn't fit with the present tone of the article though. I don't mind you deleting it for now, but my interest in war makes it inevitable I will want to bring in more of both the technical detail and the human casualties of some of these wars. In my view it is hardly fair to mention a war without a brief summary. What do you think? Guinnog 01:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I quite agree that too many details are undesirable. That's why I'd go for a brief summary, but I think the deaths are important. Guinnog 01:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You asked for comment. That is my comment. Respect that. Jooler 22:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would not want to keep you any more from those intellectually challenging articles that you contribute to, such as Chav, Twiglets and Milky Bar. Are you trying to claim some kind of intellectual superiority because I have edited these articles? Well I apologise for the breadth of my knowledge and eclectic interests. For Twiglets I removed some vandalism For Milky Bar all I did was create a redirect ro milkybar a month ago !! It appears I'm being stalked. At the time of the 'River Plate incident' I made the mistake of coming to Wikipedia whilst drunk and upset over an entirely different personal matter, and I regret the outburst 100%. Thank you for dragging it up again! Jooler 13:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Stalking?! A man is judged by his deeds.  On Wikipedia, your deeds are your user contributions.  I was simply looking to see if you were a regular contributor to the empire space (like I am).  I found it mildly amusing that you had contributed to these articles (and your drunken outburst) - perhaps my wit was a little too cutting here.  (I apologise).  But there is a serious point at stake - I wouldn't edit an article that I am not qualified to edit.  I was trying to see whether you were qualified to be making the statements that you were making.  Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, but just because anyone can, it doesn't mean everyone should.  (And no, that's not directed at you).  Gsd2000 01:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't like the tone of some of your comments here, as I said to you. I already explained to you (and now others have too on the article's talk page) that repeatedly deleting content from Wikipedia without seeking consensus is not the way to go. In good faith, it was just a mistake, if an annoying one. In bad faith it was vandalism. If you expect others to assume good faith, be polite to them. Consider the strong possibility that many besides me will find comments like I would not want to keep you any more from those intellectually challenging articles that you contribute to, such as Chav, Twiglets and Milky Bar very arrogant and rude, and you will certainly find it counterproductive in achieving whatever it is you are trying to achieve. Me, I am just trying to make it a better article.
 * Again, you cannot own articles here, and personal comments like the ones you have made to me and now to Jooler are quite unacceptable on Wikipedia. Have a scan through No personal attacks if you haven't already done so, please. Guinnog 16:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm responding to this post on my user page. I've put your post iin italics, my replies in {brackets):

Accusing contributors with whom you disagree of vandalism (I didn't accuse or label you as anything, after you had deleted this valid info for the second time, while no obvious consensus had been reached in talk I wrote the edit summary "(reinsert significant fact. deletion will be viewed as vandalism. see talk)". I later apologised for hurting your feelings, as I should have really assumed good faith.) for reverting your reverts, claiming consensus when there is none (it was 3:4) (I didn't ever say or imply there was a consensus. Indeed, I'd say the lack thereof is why you should not have persistently deleted this info) ''getting annoyed because someone with an opposing view makes a request for comment to widen the debate after an extensive debate amongst a limited set of individuals. Before you lecture others, (I am not lecturing you. I am warning you that your behaviour appears to contravene Wiki policy) ask yourself - are these the actions of a "good" wikipedian? I agree I should probably take a walk around the block before posting sometimes, but still, it's rather galling having you tell me off given your own actions.'' Mmmm. Well, I'm sorry to have galled you then. I, frankly, would rather be editing an article, but I don't think we can work together unless we can first treat each other with respect, listen to each other's views and forgive each other's differences. I certainly forgive you your opinion that these facts are not noteworthy enough for inclusion in the article, although I disagree with it. If you review my communications with you I think you'll see that I have consistently tried to compromise with you and be courteous. But I'm afraid I cannot work with personal put-downs of the sort you have dispensed a few of here. Maybe that walk around the block is a good idea, or else a glass of something? However you manage it, I suggest you 'chill out' somewhat. Best regards Guinnog 17:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No one is qualified to know everything. There are some things we think we know until we discover that we have been misinformed. Every day I learn something new and have previously held ideas overturned. I have been a contributor to Wikipedia since August 2002 and under a different name I used to spend an awful lot more time editing than I do now. Wikipedia has been created by a community of amateurs collating facts (and unfortunately sometimes factoids); and debating the value of those facts. In the long run no one person can own an article. The value of your contribution will be no greater of less than any other contributor; because the day after you stop editing an article, someone else can come along and rewrite it completely. Since 2002 I have seen a lot material mercilessly rewritten time and time again. Your words are more like scribbles in the sand than chiselled into rock. Your arrogance does you no favours and cuts no ice with me; so please leave it at the door. Jooler 09:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Amateur
Thanks for your clarification. Sorry if I sounded defensive. Really, in most fields, we're all amateurs. I only did a year's History of Science myself (my degree was in Chemistry), but have, like you, an extensive personal library. My main fields are aviation and nautical warfare in the 20th century, but I read quite widely in history, as well as fiction. I've incidentally learned a lot about 19th century history on the (extremely well researched and referenced, as well as funny) Flashman books of George Macdonald Fraser.

Please don't take any misunderstandings we have had personally; I'm just (like you) trying to make this article even better (it's pretty good already). There's no need for our relations to be frosty, and I look forward to continuing to work with you on improving the article.

Guinnog 23:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Images: Coats of Arms
Trace them in Illustrator. Takes between 5 mins and half an hour. See Haigerloch and Eppstein for examples I've done. Guinnog 06:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you have one you wanted done? Guinnog 22:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Belgian colonialism
You removed the reference and while it should be better explained couldn't it fall under corporate colonialism? While its not owned by the state, its generally still considered part of the colonial empire. The Dutch and the English were known to have used this early on. 12.220.94.199 01:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Yes, that would be what is termed sneaky vandalism - although, my internet connection is preventing me from performing the block. Best to wait for someone else at the moment. --HappyCamper 23:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why did you call this vandalism? See Vandalism for how we use the word here.  Jkelly 00:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * response Gsd2000 01:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I blocked User:71.146.133.208 for 48 hours for "misleading edits". These sorts of blocks are very ambiguous, and probably explains the reluctance to take action. --HappyCamper 01:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad I could help! If you encounter more complicated vandalism cases, feel free to come by my talk page anytime :-) I'll set aside the time needed to do things properly so that your efforts are worth your time. --HappyCamper 03:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing that up for me. Jkelly 04:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Empire
Just wanted to give you credit for a very well written article! I am so glad to see really great writing here, that's not too often you spot in the wikipedia. Now, I may not agree with you about everything in the article, but thank God we have some brits who can clean up the articulation in here! You wouldn't happen to be an historian? --SWA 23:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)