User talk:Doctor Boogaloo/Archive 2

How you treat other users.
Do not treat others as they Vandalising okay? Just because you an "older" memeber. If you do not want to be called a Vandal do not whack other users automatically with the Vandal stick. (IIIV 15:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC))


 * I made an honest mistake, IIIV seems unable to give people the benefit of the doubt. Gsd2000 15:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If it is a mistake do not revert again. I understand and i accept your Apology. I am sorry if I am came off to strong on you that I did not mean. I do not appericate being called a Vandal when I try to remove a POV of from an Article.(IIIV 15:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

It's fine I understand. (IIIV 16:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

'''For the record, the above user was confirmed as a sockpuppet and permanently banned. User:IIIV''' Gsd2000 19:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User:XGustaX and "friends"
Are you on it? I was looking into how to report them, but maybe you have more experience with sockpuppet checks. ~ trialsanderrors 17:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, this message above is upsetting. Also I have not been on Costa Rica page for months now. You say we have the same edits, but I do not see this all I see are Comic book super hero edits from this Celto. Saying people are Sock puppets is a serious thing and should be taken very serious. Thank You (XGustaX 18:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC))


 * It's possible that the other four are sockpuppets unrelated to you. In that case you should be cleared. In any case it makes sense to check them all in one go. ~ trialsanderrors 18:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The more I investigate the more obvious your sockpuppetry is, XGustavX. I see you have already been accused of it.  Gsd2000 18:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

yeah well i have been accused of Sockpupperty for my IP address tho. Not other names this was when I started wikipedia. Also why would FR-Altas be me if all his edits are on Costa Rica mostly.(XGustaX 18:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC))


 * How amusing - caught redhanded at your own sock-puppetry game: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGsd2000&diff=62059226&oldid=62058585 Gsd2000 18:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I just told you I thats my IP address Read above.(XGustaX 18:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC))


 * Whatever - you've been totally rumbled. It's a shame that you have to act in this way.  A lot of people devote a great deal of time and effort to Wikipedia.  You are spoiling it for others by trying to bend debates and discussions by sock puppetry.  At the end of the day it really suggests that your arguments aren't strong enough by themselves.  You have to fake a consensus to try and get your way.  Gsd2000 18:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You can accuse me all you want ,but those other people aren't me. You like blaming people don't you just like how you blame above IIIV. (XGustaX 18:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC))


 * Grow up. We'll soon see what happens - I requested a checkuser on you.  It will soon be clear if the IP addresses match.  Gsd2000 18:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I also accused user IIV of being a sockpuppet of XGustaX. I am still not sure whether this is the case. In any case user XGustaX has a long history of using sockpuppets so new users editing articles which he is using must be watched... --Burgas00 19:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that User: Cassius80 is not a sockpuppet of XGustaX.--Burgas00 22:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip - I think you are correct. Removed from the relevant pages.  Gsd2000 22:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Confirmed. Excellent reseach all around. ~ trialsanderrors 01:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record User:XGustaX was confirmed as a sockpuppet and the main sockpuppeteer account was permanently banned. Gsd2000 19:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging: Encierro
I noticed that Image:Pastrana Encierro3.jpg uses an obsolete tag (viz. ).  I suspect that the appropriate tag is , but I don't want to tag it that way without confirmation that you once had the rights to the image. If you could spend a minute to drop by that image (and the others you uploaded around the same time with the same tag) to make the tag more specific, that would ensure that they aren't erroneously deleted. Nice picture, by the way, though I can't help but wonder what was going on to the left of the shot that was drawing so much of the crowd's attention. LW izard @ 02:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries, it can happen to anybody...:-)--Cassius80 09:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that tag. I should have been more specific when I mentioned "the others you uploaded around the same time with the same tag." I meant Image:Encierro Pastrana1.jpg and Image:Encierro Pastrana2.jpg. Same goes for them. LW izard @ 08:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Gsd2000! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. &mdash;Xyra e l / 07:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC) 07:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Basic Geography
Please refrain from claiming that Ireland is part of Britain. There's no excuse-no, not even your unmistakably jingoistic edits- for such ignorance. Thank you. 193.1.172.166 23:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Anonymous IP from the University of York. Shouldn't you be doing your homework?  Gsd2000 23:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Brighton page
Yes, incredible. It seems that what he has done is put links across Wikipedia to subjects on which he has information on his webpage. As he offers consulting services, the intention would seem to be to get additional links from high Google Page Rank articles and therefore improve the search engine optimisation of his website. Although it could also just be vanity, as originally suspected. It seems to be clear that it is he who is putting those links up. The communication style is identical.--Bcnviajero 18:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have seen his links on most towns for NE Hampshire. i have contemplated deleting these before but there is no obvious spam on the pages. they also seem to be quite accurate.  However, i do not think they qualify as links under the WP:RS quidelines so i would be happy to see them removed.  The reason he is doing this might be vanity alone, nevertheless it is no excuse and sets a bad precedent. David D. (Talk) 22:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that one should not really be adding links to one's own websites just like one should not add one's own original research. Also, he should be trying to improve the articles themselves rather than linking to parallel pages - if there is relevant information missing in the WP article then add it, and if there is no missing information then it makes the external link superfluous!  Anyway I deleted a few links of his.  Doubtless they will crop up again.  Gsd2000 23:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have deleted a bunch of them. It is unclear whether it is vanity or a desire to improve his Google PR in order to get more traffic/business, but either way he is a menace.  And an aggressive one.  On a related topic, there is a user  who continually adds spam links to a hotel reservation service, disguised as photo sites.  He has been temporarily blocked once before.  How do we request that he be blocked again, permanently?  --Bcnviajero 11:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Another link which may interest you. 'www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/05/340273.html?c=on#c147846'.  I hope you don't mind that I took out the hyperlink, but I am sure you will understand.  --Bcnviajero 20:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just spotted these comments; I seem to have made a friend! He still can't spell my surname though... DWaterson 20:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. The guy clearly has a massive bee in his bonnet... maybe he's still smarting from his less than impressive election results: :) With regards to proving sockpuppetry, the problem as you say is his use of anonymous IPs; the Indymedia article above and its comments categorically links him by real name to User:Keith_Parkins and to anonymous edits to Talk:Aldershot such as  and  given the use of identical phrases and abusive names (directed at me), but we need a clear link between two registered usernames to establish sockpuppetry. When he posts under a registered username, he seems to moderate his language somewhat. :/ DWaterson 00:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Spam
This edit might interest you. David D. (Talk) 19:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for the message on my talk page, that is definitely good news. Sorry for not responding sooner, I was away. Maybe I am doing something wrong, but I did a quick experiment on my own talk page and was able to add the link still...that shouldn´t be possible, right?

--Bcnviajero 18:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

brighton tsunami
Hi- i thought the photo of the Tsunami exhibit would be fantastic -i have brilliant photos of the Jubilee street library and the tsunami exhibit as well. a rethink maybe :-)) pr perhaps put somewhere in article. as fort thong beach photo -thats been debated a bit as well he heUkbn2 23:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

El Gringo
Please be advised that I have filed a request for comment on User:El Gringo's behaviour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robdurbar (talk • contribs)


 * Just to be clear, I wasn't thinking of you at all when I mentioned El Gringo's provocation; I hope I don't give the impression that I do. --Robdurbar 18:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Colonialism
Hello Gsd! I do not own the article and do not consider so. But I completely disagree with the removal of full sections and have clearly stated my reasons on the relevant talk page. We must find consensus together, and calling me vandal because I disagree with your massive deletions doesn't help. Regards, Lapaz 14:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Colonialism & calling others vandal
Hello Gsd! I am pleased to see that you recognize we have an argument. I noticed (I had forgotten, already, pardon me!) that you had already called me a vandal because I disagree with your deletions. I also see on your talk page that you are quite quick in calling others vandals when you disagree. Please start by stopping this attitude. I have no wish in losing times with people who, as you responded to a guy who talked to you, should be doing their homework. Now, excuse my anger, I'm sure that if you are reasonnable enough, you'll understand why people get angry when you accuse them of vandalism because they disagree with you &mdash; but we may forget all of this stupid argument, and go to the real stuff: contents dispute. So, if you disagree with my edits, make a list &mdash; I've made it already for you on the Talk:Colonialism page &mdash; and argue over there your point. There is no use in attacking my English, claiming I am against all of your moves, etc. I'll finish here, as content dispute is on the article talk page. Oh no, I forgot: please do not make "Lapaz" sections in these talk pages. If you have something to say which personnaly concerns me, do so on my talk page (and do not abuse of it). Thanks, I hope we will be able to get on to the real arguments instead of losing time. Cheers (it's only Wikipedia) Lapaz

Image:Deshima Scale Model2.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Deshima Scale Model2.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. Peter O. (Talk) 12:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam?
Hi

I added a number of references to FIBIS (Families in British India Society) to pages relating to India. But you removed them citing it as spam. FIBIS is a non profit organisation which has been publishing East India Company and India Office records in agreement with the British Library in London which is guardian of them. These records are available free of charge, and always will be. Therefore FIBIS will not make money out of publishing them - indeed it is all done by unpaid volunteers. I feel that letting people know where the records of the British East India Company and the UK government India Office are available is a valid information on the Appropriate pages in Wikipedia - we get nunerous enquiries by researchers.

Is it possible to reconsider your decision to remove these references?

Many thanks

John Johnkendall1 09:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Now blocked for 48 hours. (aeropagitica) 13:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

British Empire
I have serious doubts to your credibility along with Wiki-ED. This is a University Text Book at Major North American Universities, research compiled on other research done by professors at Oxford, Cambridge, MIT, etc. This is Widely Accepted as Fact! You should really do your research first. You have no proof to back up your claim with ANY sources (reliable), which leads to the impression of Bias and you not respecting the NPOV of this article.

You started by saying one thing was the problem, and took them BOTH out without any established proof to your claims. I will be writing up a = Controversies = section in a few days, provided with reputable sources because this article need a seriously overhaul. Your acting with Censorship instead of opening your mind to widely established facts, from University TEXT

74.104.74.27 12:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I forgot to Sign in, but don't make accusations without proof. I don't need some sort of survey to make a Controversy section, which is a point of neutrality. Unless you can Provide any Proof instead of HOT-Air, with out any Proof, and I feel that you Wiki-ED, especially you, and Bullying into getting your Point by Censorship which violate Wikipedia Rules. I will Post it, and unless you can accurately disprove my claims, it's allowed in. You and Wiki-ED are not the Owner of this site, and don't be a Sock-Puppet by going around and using your influence to Support your view(s). That's against Wikipedia policy. Govern yourself accordingly.

Cosmos416 12:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

History of colonialism
I am reminding you of the Wikipedia policy Editing_policy, Ownership_of_articles; and Assume good faith by showing mutual respect using the article's discussion page to explain your cryptic "section that was out of place in a paragraph about US turning a blind eye to European colonialism". My good faith is shown by the care of my edits, I do not delete skillfull edits without due consideration which you have not given to me.58.107.15.245 18:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The Section is titled: "Decolonization (1945-1997)", not "US turning a blind eye to European colonialism"
 * 2) The paragraph is specifically about the US opposing colonisation, and then supporting colonisation ; especially in relation to Cold War fears. Your removal of new content about the US changing from anti to pro colonial stance over the West New Guinea (over US Cold War fears as further explained in the appropiate West New Guinea article) issue contradicts your edit notation.
 * 3) I very skillfully rescued the next paragraph out of respect for the other editors even though they were making a statement which is contradicted by relevent facts I had just improved the article with.

Gsd2000 said: "using this ploy. I've done a lot of contructive work on WP, so I'm not worried in the slightest by your tactics. Contributors that haven't even bothered to create a user name for themselves are rarely taken seriously, anyway. Gsd2000" - Oh no, I am so so scared of you, not. I find your ongoing efforts to belittle and try to berate me and others whom you keep reverting ; a sad reflection on the Wikipedia community. It is also the reason that I mostly limit myself to adding new content and improving articles. But when I saw that you have been a habitual reverting demon belittling other people's edits for far far too long; I did decide someone had to speak up.58.107.15.245 19:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly got your attention, didn't it?
 * Now how about trying to actually be civil and talk about the article? I shall repeat the above on the article Talk page; in future I hope you will address an article and alert the editor of your concerns rather than displaying disregard for their content by reverting it out of Wikipedia.58.107.15.245 21:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC by 58.107.15.245
I feel I'm being harassed by 58.107.15.245 - he's filed an RfC on me and not even bothered to either read the requirements for an RfC, or even how to write one up. All I did was revert two of his edits that I thought were POV (and explained why on the talk page). What can I do? Gsd2000 13:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ps when you removed the malformed RFC, you only removed half of it... Gsd2000 13:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh? Where's the other part? - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 14:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see it now. I did an edit on the revision before his last edit, didn't realize he had spread it across more than one.  Whoops! - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 14:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring
You left me a message on edit warring saying that's what I'm doing but if I am are you not aswell? Somethingoranother 00:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)