User talk:Gogo Dodo: Difference between revisions

Archives
April 2006 – June 2006

Thank you for catching that bit of vandalism. User:64.78.164.226 is probably a sockpuppet of User:24.224.217.39, an attention-starved type of vandal. His m.o. is to mess around with an article until a r.c. patroller posts a warning, he will then proceed to harrass or attempt to impersonate that editor. Once blocked, he will try to provoke others by posting immature taunts (key themes being pedantry and pedophilia) on his talk page until it is protected. If you encounter a similar pattern of editing in the next few days it might save some time and trouble to not warn that vandal at all, just report it to WP:AIV & request talk page protection. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 03:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reversion of the vandalism on my userpage. Seems it was an acquaintance of mine, not logged in. But tell me, where do I get the popups tool you used; must I download anything? — Garykirk | ^talk! 20:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The popups tool is at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. -- Gogo Dodo 20:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edits on Alegoo92 are okay; that user is my friend and he told me to edit his page so I played a joke on him. Sorry.-Andrewia 03:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, please be careful with your joke edits. It can easily be construed as vandalism. -- Gogo Dodo 04:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cleaning up all the vandalism to my subpages! I was out for the day and was surprised to see that User:61.95.37.225 had taken such an interest :) Ziggurat 23:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. -- Gogo Dodo 04:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page (you seem to do a lot of that). Canderson7 ^(talk) 02:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. User page vandalism really bugs me since it's a personalized attack. -- Gogo Dodo 04:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can shed light on what is going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of food topics. --Transhumanist 20:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What appears to be going on is a vigorous discussion on the merits of the AfD. If you meant "Why did you vote Delete?" I voted delete because I thought that the topic was too vague and was going to become unmaintainable. See the discussion on the AfD. -- Gogo Dodo 01:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As many others have pointed out above and as your list of contributions shows, you've made a habit of reverting userpage vandalism, which is very thoughtful of you. So thank you! - Tapir Terrific 15:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for my first barnstar. I'm honored! -- Gogo Dodo 06:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting my userpage from vandalism. Arbiteroftruth 05:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. -- Gogo Dodo 06:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh thank you soooo much!! I didn't know. I PROMISE that i'll never ever do it again, ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyisstupid (talk • contribs)

Alright. -- Gogo Dodo 16:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been re-vandalising, and a recent block seems to have expired. I think he should be re-banned, but I don't know how to. Can you tell me how to, or do I have to be an admin? -Wser 09:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An admin needs to do the block, but anybody can report a vandal that needs blocking. You can report them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. However, I recently discovered ARV, which does the reporting semi-automatically for you. Very handy. -- Gogo Dodo 16:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info! -Wser 16:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. -- Gogo Dodo 16:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Wont happen again. 129.108.25.8 17:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. -- Gogo Dodo 17:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting my discussion page. Good looking out. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. -- Gogo Dodo 20:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot seem to contact you, but I would just like to vent my anger by editing your user page. How dare you revert my comments on the user: DVokes. I am that very user, but I cannot sign in because of a locked password.

HOW DARE YOU. I hope you are ashamed of your actions. 88.110.18.87 21:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from your user page :) Ziggurat 21:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. =) -- Gogo Dodo 07:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from user page: Why won't you tell me why you reverted my article? Do you have a problem with British people? If you do, I would just like to say that the kid in me who used to read science fiction back in the 1980s is pretty delighted to see someone say with full sincerity that we've got to do something about all the bots and semi-bots running around alphabetizing everything. This is the future we created. 88.110.18.87 22:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. I didn't copy this one over as it seems to be fairly clear at this point that it was simple vandalism (see his/her talk page, and mine too) - the second half comes from User:Ziggurat/People, and I have no idea why they decided to copy that bit over. Ziggurat 07:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I copied it over just for posterity's sake. Might as well have a full record of this person's uhh... contributions. -- Gogo Dodo 07:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over your contributions and Talk page replies, it seems highly unlikely that you are User:DVokes. You seemed more than capable of editing my User page, so I don't know why you couldn't contact me. As for why I reverted your "comments", simple really... you vandalized his page. -- Gogo Dodo 07:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting that vandalism off my user page. :) That particular user seems to be angry that I removed his vandalism from Mount Tabor High School. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 01:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. =) Yeah, his edits certainly look like some kid going overboard. Makes you wonder. -- Gogo Dodo 07:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your message: Oh, thank you for reverting mine too! Ah, to be young and stupid... But hey, now I know how I got my admin job, which was a surprise to me, since I don't have an admin job or know anyone named Shanel. Anyway, see you around! - Tapir Terrific 19:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your talk page. =) -- Gogo Dodo 20:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: our Wale swallowing: Bwah-HA! (I fink somebuddy wikes us...) - Tapir Terrific 22:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: my totally awesome existence: Dude, it's true, you're totally unworthy, because I'm a way more influential admin than you. -Tapir Terrific 01:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(By the way, everyone is "dude" to me - I don't know if you're male or female, but it just occurred to me, "Hey, not everybody in the universe knows that I call anyone "dude.") -Tapir Terrific 01:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your message: See, this is what happens when you didn't watch cartoons as a kid - everything like that goes over your head! By the way, thanks for again reverting vandalism on my page. Got myself a little stalker, it seems - he even created another sock puppet/tapir imitation yesterday. He must be seriously bored. - Tapir Terrific 20:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, maybe not everyone, but certainly that mean old Abjuj or watevr :(, Bang on why i'm pissed off tho, but thanks for your kind comment ;)

-Deon555|talk 05:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your talk page. -- Gogo Dodo 20:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to alert you to the fact that the article List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch has had considerable edits by IP user 202.131.178.153 who also removed the AfD template. I've replaced the template (although consensus seems to be forming for "Keep") and warned the user. Don't know whether their edits are accurate (it's not my speciality) but maybe worth checking. -- MightyWarrior 10:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your Talk page with a courtesy copy to TV Shows Fan. -- Gogo Dodo 18:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Just wanted to say thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. :)

Hbackman 02:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. -- Gogo Dodo 03:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Ryūlóng 00:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do, good suggestion. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 03:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, look, Gogo Dodo! I have another fan! Wow, I'm the luckiest tapir in the world.  : ) Anyway, how goes the vandal fighting with you? See you around, - Tapir Terrific 16:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your talk page. =) -- Gogo Dodo 04:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For reverting vandalism on my user page --Steve 23:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. -- Gogo Dodo 04:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as well. --Nlu (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. -- Gogo Dodo 07:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me, too! --Huon 09:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. -- Gogo Dodo 16:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks from me, as well. NatusRoma | Talk 14:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. -- Gogo Dodo 20:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see how its your place to clear things I wrote on other people's userpages WalterWalrus3 05:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your talk page. -- Gogo Dodo 06:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Thanks, I wasn't aware of that policy, I shall comply from now on, cheers Myanw 20:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your talk page. -- Gogo Dodo 20:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'll try with those, it seems a bit weird at first, but I'll eventually get the hang of it - Myanw 20:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to change the word "eclectic" to "eccentric" to describe Teeds, the cult leader. I don't think this is nonsense, I think the word eclectic, as in "coming from many sources" was used accidentally, and what was meant was "eccentric" as in strange or unusual.(This is in reference to the Hollow Earth article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_earth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.242.21.132 (talk • contribs)

Replied to your talk page. -- Gogo Dodo 20:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for reverting vandalism to my userpage!! -- Lost 20:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. -- Gogo Dodo 20:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my change, but I'm not sure why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.4.155.10 (talk • contribs)

Replied to your talk page. -- Gogo Dodo 20:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly I am thanking a bot, but thanks for reverting the vandalism to my User Page. Ordinary Person 04:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and replied to your talk page. -- Gogo Dodo 04:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This time, it's you who snuck in and made the edits I was planning to do, you did a way better job than me BTW, good job :-) - Myanw 18:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your talk page. -- Gogo Dodo 06:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, how does one vandalize graffiti? (Please forgive me if the talk isn't in the proper format, I've just started to take an active role in Wikipedia.)The simple matter is that you cannot have what you claim to be a completely open project - freely edited by anyone for any reason - and an honest encyclopedia. This project wouldn't concern me in the slightest if not for the fact that people are beginning to use it as a genuine source for information. Wikipedia now faces an important choice. It can either insist on very high quality articles, buttressed by sources, verifications, and all of the other accoutrements of any other scholarly pursuit; or it can remain true to its supposed gospel of freedom of expression in the form of definitive looking encyclopedia entries. Except that there is not freedom for all - as evidenced by your recent threat of banishment from the proud ranks of Wikipedians. (Though it should be clear that I would never accept that title even in a moment of levity.) Who are you to say that my interpretation of a particular entry is incorrect? Who are you to impose your views on my entries? Granted, as a user, you should have the same freedom as I to change my entries as I might change another's. That is acceptable. Using administrative priviliges to ban me on a supposedly free endeavor is not.

So I shall continue on performing acts of what you deem vandalism. Destroy this account if you feel that you must, another will rise up. Others already have. Nor should you believe that I act out of a childish boredom or desire for entertainment. I do not. I have a job outside of policing a fanciful would-be reference source that I take quite seriously. Indeed, the only thing that I take more seriously is the free flow of information. I believe that Wikipedia may have started out of similar beliefs. I say similar, not identical, because there is an important difference between the free flow of simply information, and the free flow of correct information. One is essential for the growth of any information based society, for the improvement of its citizens, of the carrying on of the precious flame of human knowledge that even now sees the dark creeping ever closer. The other is the blackest of the night. I feel that I must fight, that I must do something, even if it is quietly changing dates in the dark, altering sentences, or borrowing entire articles. Anything to further reduce the accuracy of this on the fence abomination so that anyone who attempts to use it as anything more than a highly suspect branching off point to genuine knowledge finds themselves quickly and forcefully rebuked. Nor do I intend to scribble alone in this night. I would hope that anyone who happens upon this - the few moments before it too falls victim to the same censorship that will claim the account that spawned it - will change just one article. Or one article each day. More than hoping, however, I will build relationships through this screen and outside of it to ensure that the dark passages of this mine of ignorance find, from time to time, people with headlamps bumping into one another.

Africanus 01:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your contributions to Wikipedia speak for itself. I have no wish to debate you about your opinions on the quality of Wikipedia. Please take your debate somewhere else. -- Gogo Dodo 06:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly the quality that I take offense to, it's the nature of Wikipedia. The quality of something is an outgrowth of its nature, and the nature of this project is one doomed to endlessly poor quality. Again, this wouldn't be a problem if not for the fact that it's begun to draw attention as a serious reference work. If only Wikipedia would post a prominent disclaimer on each page that the content is not verified and should be taken, at best, on entertainment value. Perhaps change the name from, "The Free Encyclopedia". Dare I dream, maybe it could limit itself to popular culture and leave out any serious entries. If any of these, though the last two are admittedly unlikely, took place there would be no need for a conflict. Africanus 13:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no wish to debate you about the quality, policies, or your opinions on what is right and wrong on Wikipedia. Please do not use my Talk page as your soapbox. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo 16:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me. It's been semi-protected so hopefully we won't have to worry about it anymore. Evil saltine 14:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. --Mikedk9109 19:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. -- Gogo Dodo 04:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are my changes being reverted? Do I not have a valid point? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Survivor:_The_Australian_Outback Doctofunk 19:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your talk page. -- Gogo Dodo 04:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know he's created several, and I actually deleted one myself (as an attack page). Believe me when I say I understand your frustration. However, that single article (considered by itself) was not patent nonsense and could potentially have been a poorly-written badly POV article about a real event. My guess was that it wasn't anything we wanted, but the whole point of speedy deletions is that if there's any potential doubt, having more eyes on the subject is a good thing.

If he is recreating content that was deleted after community review, then I would be willing to delete new articles on the same subject as recreation of deleted content; but I'm not comfortable removing the subject entirely without some kind of community consensus. Not that I'm objecting to how it's been handled by others (I probably won't even look), I'm just explaining how I personally interpret what policy says I should do. -- SCZenz 22:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your talk page. -- Gogo Dodo 04:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28titles%29&action=history