User talk:Roberticus/Archive 1

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Afd stuff

 * The AfD rules
 * The AfD procedures
 * The PROD rules and procedures
 * The Speedy Deletion rules
 * The Speedy Deletion procedures
 * The IfD rules and procedures

WT:AN
Hi there, I have reverted your typo fix at WT:AN as the mis-spelling was deliberate, and you should not take it upon yourself to 'fix' the spelling/grammar of other editors on talk pages etc. Regards, GiantSnowman 13:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
hi boogerpatrol. please forgive me, i am new and not too familiar with editing wiki. sorry if this is done incorrectly. thank you for your help. Not panda bear (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)not panda bear


 * No worries. I did notice your edit to Sublime and was kind of perplexed because I had never heard of this person before. I then did a web search & couldn't find any evidence that this person was ever part of the band. So I figured it may have been a mistake, but if you do have any reliable sources which discuss this, I'd sincerely like to see them and would probably add them back to the article myself, as this is my favorite band & I'd enjoy learning some new stuff about them! Boogerpatrol (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Chick tract
Hi, I recently altered the article on "Chick tract" I was told that my view was not neutral. I don't think what was there previously was any more neutral than what I posted. On the current "Chick tract" page, the writer spends the majority of the time tearing Jack Chick apart. I was simply giving the readers the other side of the story. The positive one. Same as you wouldn't only list that Bush Jr. was the one that sent us to the war in Iraq, you would try to list positives that he did too. I think I should be allowed to list a few pros to "Chick tracts" since all that is there right now is hateful condescending insults toward Jack Chick. Please get back to me soon. Thanks

Hjurgelis (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Hjurgelis


 * Hello, and thanks for writing me back. I've linked to the "diff" which shows the change which you had made here. Your addition stated "due to the fact that the only TRUE religion is Bible believing Christianity." This is a statement in the voice of the article with which many who have deeply held convictions of their own disagree. Perhaps such a statement could be made more neutral by saying that this was Mr. Chick's belief, which inspired the tracts he produced discussing various world religions. Both people who agree and disagree with this statement of faith would agree that this is Chick's view, based on his prolific publishing. For more on this, consider reading WP:YESPOV. I also have to say that I disagree that the article is biased or hateful against Chick, it is quite balanced in my opinion. The section "Parodies and popular culture" does discuss works which may lampoon Chick tracts, but the article merely discusses notable facts, it doesn't make any judgements. Boogerpatrol (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've been trying to add a testimonies page to the "Chick tract" page, and Czolgolz  keeps deleting it because of "copyright" infringement. I sourced the testimonies, and if others can talk about movies and disney without copyright infringement then I see no reason for this not to be the case with the "Chick tract" page. I feel that Czolgolz and HMSSolent really have some bent against Jack Chick. They allow criticisms, but I source testimonies from Chick's website and I'm in the wrong? They source chick.com many times throughout the page, but when I do it it's wrong and I'm stealing? I don't get it. Double standard? I'm being neutral, as I saw that I was in the wrong before, but I'm still getting deleted. This is just really frustrating me, as it seems that a newbie comes along and is wrong no matter what they do but if a senior-editor does something wrong it's ok. Hjurgelis (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Hjurgelis
 * replied to the comments which User:Czolgolz left on your talk page.Boogerpatrol (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sureños
Despite our best efforts, that one (IMO) problem editor continuously reverts the article in favor of inclusion of a flimsy evidence of Juggalo affiliation with the Surenos, despite piles of evidence to the contrary.

I think at this point, getting an independent, admin 3rd party to interject would be the best endeavor.

Solntsa90 (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Tommy Lasorda
The edit wasn't explained, but it removed a duplicate mention of Alex Avila in that section. Just a heads up. EricEnfermero Howdy! 17:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, have reverted myself. I did read the source, but failed to see that was a duplicate reference as you noted.Boogerpatrol (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Racialism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Scotty Campbell
No problem. TonyO13 (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC) TonyO13

Jesus' walk on water move request
Hi there

You recently participated in a move request for the Jesus' walk on water article. There was no consensus for the proposed move, but some suggested the new possible title of Jesus walking on water and I have reopened the move request with that as the move target. If you are interested, please contribute to the debate at Talk:Jesus' walk on water. Thanks! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks for the heads up, have added my 2 cents... Boogerpatrol (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
Those weren't good faith edits you reverted, just outright vandalism. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * the end result was just an unformatted mess by the time they were done, so I was giving the benefit of the doubt to where maybe it was just incompetence... Boogerpatrol (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Please allow John Kotter Page content
Hello Boogerpatrol, please forgive me as I am new with this. I work at Kotter International, and we own the copyright for the content up on his page here, but we put it up there. What can we do to make it usable on Wikipedia? Please advise, we're standing by watching his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.125.57 (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, if you go back to the John Kotter page, in the middle box of the large template which discusses the whole copyright thing, there is an area which reads " If you hold the copyright to this text, you can license it in a manner that allows its use on Wikipedia. Click "Show" to see how." By clicking on that, you can see how to do this, by either posting free use notices on the original webpage, or contacting Wikimedia Foundation. Thanks! Boogerpatrol (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Boogerpatrol, I am John Kotter's assistant and I have submitted the requested form (not sure I filled it out right??) to the requested email address to rectify this issue. I personally wrote this bio and posted it to our kotterinternational.com bio page and also to the wikipedia page. It is authorized to be listed on here as his bio and is NOT copyrighted. I am also new to the wiki interface and am not quite clear on how to make revisions without getting flagged for this or that reason. Please let me know how long this issue will be resolved and please let me know if there is anything further I need to do to move this forward as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.139.242 (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Unforutnately, I don't have personal experience on the lead time on response from the WMF, but if you've followed the instructions on the page, you should be receiving a response soon, and just based on other conversations I've read here, I'm guessing a week or two, tops. Best of luck! Boogerpatrol (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Boogerpatrol. But I am afraid I sent in a form that is meant for copyrighted material. This Bio is not under any copyright. It was internally written and simply added to our website and then to Wiki. IT IS NOT COPYRIGHTED. What do we have to do to clear this up in this case? I only see copyrighted material instructions?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.139.242 (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, consider visiting the Template:Help me wikilink and reading up there on how to use it (shouldn't bee too difficult). The instructions there say to place it on your own talk page, but I've also seen it used on the article talkpage itself. This does seem to attract Wikipedians more experienced than myself who should be able to guide you on the most efficient/ effective way to resolve your question... Thanks! Boogerpatrol (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Boogerpatrol, thanks for warning the vandal at User talk:71.204.246.254. I reported them to WP:AIV due to the vandalism being after my final warning. Keep up the good work, Widefox ; talk 08:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello. Some of the information on the Baltic languages article is incorrect but presented as facts. And as this is an encyclopedia, I'm correcting them to reflect reality and deleting the lies. There are several theories and opinions, but none of them have been proved, therefore I believe they should be avoided. Now it's just offensive propaganda (not constructive at all). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.61.79.213 (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ahhh, without an edit summary this just appeared as an unexplained removal of sourced content. I recommend that if you remove this material again, use an edit summary, and preferably open a talk page thread; that way it won't loo like vandalism or such... Boogerpatrol (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, I did what you said and hopefully my edit is okay now. I'm new at this :) 78.61.79.213 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've disputed the edit and reinstated the removed information, as it is valid information that is sourced and it reflects the majority view among linguists. Previous talk page discussions have established this. Removing it would be a glaring omission and would give WP:UNDUE weight to a minority viewpoint. CodeCat (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
 Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 20:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

who is this
is this neil??? why are you bothering me?

117.229.149.138 (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not Neil. You seem to be making the same reductions to this article at least 3 times, and my reversion is the third. What's left, while not strictly vandalism, removes a good deal of sourced content. If you believe that this reduction actually helps the article, please open a section on Talk:Assam tea to discuss why before you make this change again, and at the very least provide an Edit summary for edits like this. Thanks! Boogerpatrol (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

(Regarding | this edit)
Yes um I think my edit was a vital piece of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chloeunionj (talk • contribs) 16:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ummm, here is | your edit, among other reasons, Band is a disambiguation page which helps people proceed to one of multiple possibilities when they search for the term, not just a musical group... instead of (likely) trolling my page, why not find something constructive to edit at Union J? If you truly feel this edit was a good one, please see WP:CIR Thanks! Boogerpatrol (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

RE: your edit to my undo of the removal of information
Obviously people have different "opinions", for example the "opinion" that the land this side of the existing border "belongs" to Mexico, or Mexicans, because the foreign nation of Mexico claimed this land for a few years. There can be NO dispute of the historical FACT that the land referred to in this article was the land of OUR tribes, NONE of which were ever "Mexican", none of which were ever "Latino", NONE of which were ever Mexica, or Aztec, or Mayan.

The disrespect that the chicano's who promote the so-called "Reconquista" of the US Southwest, have for OUR tribes, to which this land (US Southwest) was OUR tribal land, is beyond belief.

This land did NOT "belong" to Mexico first, "Mexico" did not exist. It did not belong to Mexico second, or longest, or last. It did NOT belong to Mexico after Spain came here from Europe, and stole this land from our tribes, it did not belong to Mexico when Spain claimed this land for SPAIN, it was never called "Mexico", it was called the Province de California and Province de Texas, part of Nueva Espania, New Spain.

The entire premise that this land be "returned" to someone, and that "someone" be "Mexicans" who are NOT "native" or indigenous to this land, is ludicrous. The land this side of the US/MEX border is not the homeland of Mexicans, not the homeland of "chicano's", not the homeland of Hispanics/Latinos (who came from Europe), and not the homeland of any Mexican tribes.

The maps used to define the so-called "Aztlan", which is the made up nonsense used by "chicano's" (among others) to illustrate the entire "Reconquesta" premise have nothing to do with the Aztec tribe. The use of maps illustrating the land theft by European-Spaniards to define some imagined "claim" on OUR tribal lands is insulting and offensive to every single Native American Indian alive today, and to our ancestors who died before us. To omit the FACT that this land was the land of our tribes, that our ancestors lived here, that this land did NOT "belong" to Mexico, is nothing more than a lie. I posted facts, someone removed the facts to promote their opinion based on fiction, I undid their removal of those facts, and you jumped in and undid it again. I will continue to post facts on this page so that the uneducated imbeciles to promote the aztlan lie and Reconquista joke are going to have to address the FACT that this land "belonged" to our tribes FIRST, and that they are using a map of European land theft to illustrate their fiction. If you, or they have a problem with that, take it up with the tribes that actually lived here (and none of them were ever called "Mexican". CheyenneZ (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * While you may disagree with the concept, it exists and is sourced in the article to those who are proponents of it. Likewise, it would be a good idea to do some research and find some reliable sources should you want to add in material which is critical of the Reconquista idea, as the article should be balanced & not give WP:UNDUE preference to any particular point of view. Unsourced statements decrying the idea can't be used in the encyclopedia for several reasons, which is why multiple editors have reverted the statements which you've added in here... Boogerpatrol (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

While you may choose to believe in the opinion that Mexicans have some "claim" on land that is currently the USA, which the foreign nation of Mexico actually only claimed to "own" for just about 25 years, hundreds of years ago, land which never "belonged" to "chicano's" (whatever that means, it certainly is not a nationality or an ethnic group) in the first place. The land referred to by the Spanish/European maps (land which defined Spanish/European claims of Native American Indian lands) was in FACT that land of OUR TRIBES, it was not "Mexican" land, it was not "Aztec" land, it was not "chicano" land, it was not "Hispanic" land, it was not "Latino" land. Get an education.

These are the TRUE people to whom this land would be returned, IF it be returned to ANYONE, the US Southwest was the homeland of THESE tribes, NONE of which have ever been called "Mexican", "Hispanic", "Latino", "Aztec", "Mayan", "Mexica", or "chicano":

Acolapissa, Adai,  Alabama,  Anadarko,  Apache,  Apalachee,  Aranama,  Arapaho,  Avoyel,  Bayogoula,  Bidai,  Biloxi,  Caddo,  Cahinnio  Chatot,  Cheyenne,  Chickasaw  Choctaw  Coahuiltecan Tribes,  Comanche,  Coaque,  Creeks,  Deadose,  Delaware,  Dotame,  Doustioni,  Eyeish,  Foxes,  Guasas  Hainai  Hathawekela(Absentee Shawnee) Hitchiti  Huma,  Illinois,  Iowa,  Iroquois,  Isleta del Sur  Jicarilla,  Kadohadacho,  Kansa,   Karankawan,  Kaskinampo, Kichai,  Kickapoo,  Kiowa,  Kiowa Apache,  Koasati,  Koroa,  Lipan,  Manso,  Miami,  Michigamea,  Missouri,  Modoc,  Mosopelea,  Mugulasha,  Munsee,  Muskogee,  Nabedache,  Nacisi,  Nacogdoche,  Nanatsoho, Natchez,  Nez Perce,  Natchitoch,  Natchitoches Confederacy,  Ofo,  Okelousa,  Opelousa,  Osage,  Oto,  Ottawa,  Ouachita,  Pascagoula,  Patiri,  Pawnee,  Peoria,  Pinkashaw,  Ponca,  Potawatomi,  Pueblos,  Quapaw,  Quinipissa,  Sauk,  Seminole,  Seneca,  Shawnee,  Soacatino,  Souchitioni,  Taensa,  Tangipahoa,  Tawakoni,  Tawasa,  Tawehash,  Tonkawa,  Tunica,  Tuskegee  Waco,  Washa,  Wea,  Wichita,  Wyandot,  Yscanis,  Yatasi,  Yazoo,  Yojuane,  Yscani,  Yuchi, Arikara, Assiniboin,  Atsina,  Bannock,  Blackfeet (Siksika), Chippewa, Cree,  Crow,  Dakota,  Jicarilla,  Kiowa, Kutenai,  Mandan,  Nez Perce,  Navaho,  Paiute,  Paloos,  Pawnee,  Piegan,  Pueblos,  Salish,  Shoshonean Family  Shoshoni,   Siksika (Blackfeet), Spokan, Ute, Yampa Awatobi, Chemehuevi,  Coahuiltec,  Cocopa,  Havasupai,  Hopi,  Keresan Family,  Kiowa,  Lipan,  Manso   Maricop,  Mohave,  Papago,  Panamint,  Pecos,  Pima,  Pueblo,  Pinal, Pueblos,  Coyotero,  Piro Pueblo,  Quahatika,  Shoshonean Family,  Shoshoni,  Sobaipuri, Tano,  Tewa,   Tigua Pueblo, Tonto,  Ute,  Walapai,  Washo,  Yavapai,  Yuma,  Yuman,  Zuni, Achomawi,  Atsugewi,  Awani,  Cahita,  Cahuilla,  Cajuenche,  Chemehuevi,  Chetco,  Chilula,  Chimariko,   Chumash,  Chumash Family,  Coanopa,  Cochimi,  Cochiti,   Copehan Family, Costanoan Family, Dakubetede,  Esselen, Halchidhoma  Huchnon  Hupa  Kamia  Karok,  Kato,  Kawaiisu,  Kawia,  Kitanemuk,  Konomihu,  Koso,  Koyeti,  Lassik, Maidu,  Mariposan Family, Mattole,  Miwok,  Modoc , Mohave,  Mono,  Mono-Paviotso,  Nongatl,  Nooksak,  Okwanuchu, Patwin,  Pomo,  Salinan,  Serrano,  Shasta , Shastan Family,  Shoshonean Family,  Shoshoni, Tachi, Tolowa, Tnbatulabal  Wailaki  Wappo  Washo  Watok Whilkut  Wintu  Wintun  Wiyot/Wiyat  Yahi , Yana,  Yodok , Yokuts , Yuki,  Yuman,  Yurok.

The entire nonsense of the so-called "Reconquista" of the Southwest is indicative of the abject ignorance of anyone who believes that maps drawn by European/Spaniards of land claimed by the European nation of Spain, for Europeans, has some valid use in application to a premise that the land defined by those Spanish maps somehow "belongs" to a different foreign nation, based on WHAT? That the foreign nation of Mexico claimed the Native American Indian land for about 25 years, and then sold it? For the few years that Mexico claimed OUR tribal lands, after the United Mexican States was established, this land was NOT even part of "Mexico", it was never part of the United Mexican States, it was Indian Territory, and it was called Province de California and the Republic of Texas. Our tribes populated and controlled this land during the years of Nueva Espania (New Spain), and for the few years that the United Mexican States claimed OUR tribal homelands as a "territory" (not "states").

So get an education, and move on. CheyenneZ (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Again I say, the content you continue to revert into the article are the only portion which is unsourced. It is also clearly non-neutral. Frankly, each of our respective opinions are irrelevant to Wikipedia, per multiple policies.
 * I think it's best to take this discussion to the article talk page to gain consensus: please post any further replies there I am also going to revert your addition for the 3rd time, and request you do not re-add this content without consensus, or sources... Boogerpatrol (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The sources used in the material posted under this subject which you apparently believe to be "relevant" are NON-neutral, and the sources themselves are prejudicial, and have no basis in historical fact. Simply because someone uses that as a "source" does not mean the source has any credence, what-so-ever. The sources in the article are false. The entire premise that the land in question "belongs" to some quasi-group which named themselves "chicano" (a non-ethnic group, non-nationality), which you apparently accept as "fact" (based on what? that certain students back in the '60s chose to call themselves some name - so do gangs),.... is not based on any "source". What is the "source" of the "reconquista" plan? It is based on lies, and without the addition of the FACT that the land in question did not "belong" to "chicano's" in the first place, the entire body of the article is a lie. And don't tell me where to post or what to post, when you reply to me, or alter my work, I will respond, where and when I choose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheyenneZ (talk • contribs) 15:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The sources may be of various opinions, agendas and such, but they are presented in the article in a way which reflects their content. The opinion you've re-inserted is not backed up by any sources. This makes a world of difference in terms of the verifiability policy. Not to be tedious, but to quote it:

"Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[1] When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view."
 * That's why I encouraged you to reference sources which offer differing points of view, but the unsourced opinions you're re-inserting, to my best understanding, simply don't belong. Regarding your statement not to tell you where to post, fair enough I suppose, but the article talk page is the most appropriate place to carry on this discussion. Please note that I'm shortly going to archive this, and may remove any more comments on the topic made here... Boogerpatrol (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

So my recourse now is to completely dismantle the entire page in question and rewrite it based on facts, not the opinions of some few misguided and poorly educated "sources" who are of the opinion that our Native American Indian tribal homelands of the southwest should be given to some foreign nation, simply because, out of the past thousands of years when we lived on this land, the foreign nation of Mexico only claimed OUR land as a "territory" (not as states) for a paltry 25 years or so, and then sold OUR land to the USA. I can post the entire history of our tribes of the southwest on that page, with sources, and maps, and then how are you going to edit your personal opinion into that, since your agenda seems to be to promote the lies and fictions you have NOT edited off the existing page? Just because there is a source to an OPINION, does not mean that opinion is relevant, or factual, and that can also be edited OUT. What is your excuse for not doing so with the nonsense that you left on the page in question?CheyenneZ (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)