User talk:Tubezone/Archive1

Burrito#External links
I looked at every link that I deleted. Some had extensive reviews of the burritos at various Mexican restaurants around the US, for example, but were written from the viewpoint of burrito cognoscenti while providing surprisingly little facts about burritos. Some of them just got things wrong (e.g. what cabeza is). I saw no reason to keep any of the links that I deleted, especially some of the blogs that were just blather. Blank Verse 09:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I looked at 'em too. I didn't put back a couple because I agree they're "just blather", as you say, I think I made a good compromise between leaving all 4 of them zapped and just reverting. I don't think all of them ought to go, after all, there's not a whole lot of dry academic analysis on the web of the burrito phenomenon, so the selection of encyclopaedia-suitable links is kind of limited. JMHO. Tubezone 21:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Hi,, thank you for applying for VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now authorized for use, so if you haven't already, simply download VandalProof from our main page and install it, and you're all set!

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either:  (which will add this user box) or   to your user page.

If you have any queries, please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Welcome to our team! &mdash;Xyrael / 16:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Pasty
Thank you for experimenting with the page Pasty on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Rsm99833 06:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Pardon ME. I am authorized to use VandalProof myself, I only got that after 1000 clean edits (which includes about 100 vandalism reverts). VP allows the you look up the edit history of the user whose edits you are reverting, you obviously didn't do that. If there was no merit to what I added, I'd never have put it in. You can have Pasty to yourself, it's not that important to me. Tubezone 15:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Soldaderas
Well, yes it hurts because it's false. Soldaderas were not an organized movement but rather a spontaneous phenomenon. In the literature you won't find an army of soldaderas as you would, for instance, find Zapata's Liberation Army of the South. There were groups of soldaderas within the various armies fighting the war, but they were unrelated to each other and may have even fought for different ideals or against each other. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 15:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure soldaderas should be described as a spontaneous phenomenon, as much as it was a necessity for the soldiers. I would agree that it's false in the sense that soldaderas were a part of all Mexican armies up until about WW2, but historical accounts and feminist political dogma (not to mention the article Mexican revolution in this encyclopaedia) tends to emphasize the role of women in liberation armies, so that's what they are popularly associated with, at least in the English language. This is not entirely incorrect, either, many of the Federal troops were underage, underpaid conscripts and wouldn't have had soldaderas. Villistas were well paid, and Zapatistas needed soldaderas as they weren't paid much if anything at all.


 * There really needs to be a separate "Women in the Mexican Revolution" article. And guess who'll probably finally break down and do it? Everyone else seems to be busy vandalizing, removing vandalism, or nitpicking. I'm starting to understand why many articles on the subject of the Revolution (in the Spanish Wikipedia, too) are half-assed or incomplete, putting in a lot of hard work writing and citing stuff just generates vandalism and nitpicking. Tubezone 07:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, coverage of the Mexican Revolution is horrible at least in the English wiki. I don't know about the Spanish wiki because I don't edit there and don't plan to anytime soon.
 * And no, I cannot write/update articles on this topic myself because I currently don't live in Mexico and I'm thus far away from my sources. English sources on the subject tend not to be up par with the Spanish sources I've read, but since I'm no expert(as in I don't have a Ph.D. on Mexican history) there is a high probability there's a good English source out there I'm not aware of. I may go back later this year, but I won't be able to make any serious updates until early next year anyway.
 * Also, regarding your last comment in my talk page, let me point out that how people spend their time in a volunteer project is no concern of yours. While I understand people can get a bit frustrated at times at the project, that gives them no right to yell at other people or imply their contributions are trivial. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 10:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't live in Mexico, and I'm not Mexican, except possibly by osmosis, and I definitely don't have a college degree in anything. Yet, I generate content on this subject. As the Wikipedia motto goes, Be Bold. You are at least as qualified as I am. Some definite works on players in the Mexican Revolution are in English, and have been translated back to Spanish. Read some.
 * let me point out that how people spend their time in a volunteer project is no concern of yours. Fine, then don't nitpick on my volunteer work. Fair enough? It certainly is my concern if the people concerned want to nitpick and bitch about the results of how I spend my time on the same project. What's your standing, how much have you contributed? That's a fair enough question if you want to criticize.
 * that gives them no right to yell at other people or imply their contributions are trivial. Your comments to ME imply that my contributions are trivial. If you don't want to be written off as trivial, contribute as well as edit. The same sources I use are equally available to you. Read 'em and use 'em. Then you won't feel the need get so freakin' defensive. Are you really Mexican? Or are you using that as a cover?Tubezone 10:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would've mentioned that I appreciate your housekeeping efforts on Mexican articles, if you'd merely mentioned that you appeciate my content additions.

World cities
Per categorization, we don't include articles in both a parent and child category. All alpha world cities are world cities, so there' no need to include Chicago in both categories. Alpha world cities is enough. -Will Beback 10:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Mexican Revolution
No problems, these clashes sometimes happen. If you're familiar with the article, can you have a look at the history to make sure I've reverted to the right version? It was a bit confused for a while, but I think it's OK now. Regards, Mr Stephen 17:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Quesadilla guanaca
Turns out I hadn't read the recipes right. I went through about a dozen recipes for quesadilla guanaca, and they all refer to a type of cheesecake, not an empanada!  There's a Salvadoran restaurant only a few blocks from where I live, I'll stop in and ask them what they think a quesadilla is.... Tubezone 23:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a Honduran baked good called a rosquilla that's equivalent to a Salvadoran quesadilla. I find most of them stale-tasting and dry (though there's a local Salvadoran store and bakery that makes a tasty one with a chewy-soft, sweet cheese-bread filling), but my husband can't get enough of them. I guess if you grow up with something... :) --Lawikitejana 00:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Tags
Ah, I see now. It's probably more productive to consider it an example of a violation of WP:POINT than vandalism. Unfortunately for simplicity's sake, he's not always wrong: it's just plain silly to have Lord Byron's article where it is now :). - Nunh-huh 03:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The Ulster County navbox
Thanks for putting that in the remaining town articles. Where comes your interest in the area? It isn't apparent from your user page.

Or were you just trying to be helpful after seeing all those repetitive edits on my part? Daniel Case 20:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't know Ulster County from Uriah Heep;-) I noticed the vandalism on the New Paltz page so I decided to check the articles on other towns in the area, so while I was at it I stuck in some of the missing infoboxes. I think the same vandal(s) went after some articles on Chicago or Mexico, that's probably how I wound up checking up on New Paltz. Why would anyone have a beef with New Paltz? I can understand Pancho Villa and Taco getting hit a lot.. Tubezone 20:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks anyway. The user who created that template has perhaps been too busy to put it in the articles in question, so I took up the slack (and along the way worked on spreading information, via talk page boxes, of the existence of the long-overdue WikiProject New York).


 * As for who would have a beef with New Paltz ... well, see Same-sex marriage in New York. Actually, that has to do with the village of New Paltz, not the town.


 * I traced the IP of the vandals to Ulster BOCES, which probably means it's New Paltz High School (some of it was genuinely funny, and I might take it to BJAODN). If I can get a definite there, I may even be able to follow up an abuse report in person since I live not too far away. Wouldn't that be cool? Daniel Case 23:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Reyner, Lord of Burgh Castle
I can't say definitively. It certainly needs better references. It hovers at the fringe of known genealogy, and may be more "unsupported tradition" than "hoax". If I can find more, I'll report back. - Nunh-huh 01:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

More hoaxery
You may also want to check out the responsible party of Matthew Jones (novelist). He seems to be more then the average hoxer, so something may be up. Thanx. 68.39.174.238 18:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD of Chiodos
I added the band's albums to your nomination. - Che Nuevara  22:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll AfD the members' articles when I get a little time. Might as well make a clean sweep of this ;-) Tubezone 22:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * I echo the above sentiments, both comments where HILARIOUS, even moreso then the infamous and noxious hoax that was their subject. "LOL" ! 68.39.174.238 02:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

James Ida
Actually, he exists, as this narrowed Google search shows. Whether he's a NOTABLE gangster is another question entirely. --Calton | Talk 01:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The rest of the gangster articles User:TheChin edited or created turn up lots of ghits, this guy gets one. So i have my doubts. OTOH, it might be a misspelling or nom de guerre of someone more notable. Tubezone 01:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please vote
The Elvira Arellano article is up for deletion. Please vote by linking to the Arrellano article, then follow the links at the top of the page. Thanks. - Chicaneo 16:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"Baron Von Habsburg in a tin"?
Is that kind of like Prince Albert in a can? Fan-1967


 * Uh, yeah, but in England, of course, they'd call it a tin. Turns out Prince Albert in a can has an article (whoda thunk it?) and I was going to link that in to the Habsburg in a tin comment, but they closed the AfD too quick. Tubezone 01:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

4231 menu restored
This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Articles for deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

United States–Mexico border
Tubezone, would you be able to help me get United States–Mexico border to featured article status; I see you're a member of WikiProject Mexico so I assumed you could help.

Thanks, --SunStar Net 11:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Dogs
Hi! You know, I hate to mention it, but I wonder if the article on Eurohound is as un-noteworthy as the one on Tamaskan Dog. You're much more experienced in all things Wiki than me; what do you think? Happy Thanksgiving!!! Keesiewonder 15:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Thank you for your thorough reply, and it does help me understand. I'll follow your lead on this. Regards, Keesiewonder 16:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Grief: This conversation you and I had "privately" is coming back to haunt me. Please see my talk page and/or Blufawn's talk page. [In other news, my Mom was a White Sox fan, but did not live to see them win the world series recently. I do have Ozzie's signature somewhere; we noticed him at the Shedd Aquarium one time when I took my Mom to see some games in the new Comisky park in the late 1990s.] Keesiewonder 17:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I see your note to Blufawn on my talk page. I haven't decided whether I'll paste it for her to see. The reason the entire discussion is there is because, surprise ... she deletes dialogue on her talk page after she is finished with it. I decided to keep a copy of it around since you never know when it may come in handy. Saturday, after she resurrected this mess on my talk page, she blanked the AfD, which was quickly returned by someone else (maybe the nominator of the AfD). About 12 hours later, an administrator deleted the AfD discussion, probably at her request. I managed to get him to restore it provided I'd agree to clean it up. So, I'm waiting for instruction from him on the mechanics of doing that w/o making more enemies. i.e. the Afd clearly states do not edit the AfD, and I've been asked to do so by an administrator, so ... Anyway, I, obviously, do not support this idea of having heated discussions and then having them deleted by appealing to the authorities so when you run Google on your topic, the heated discussions do not show. Interestingly, in the private copy I have of the AfD, where I've drafted deletions to make it "cleaner," it appears that most of what needs to be taken out was written by Blufawn. Ugh! Thanks for listening. Keesiewonder 12:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Totopo
Aqui puedes a los reales http://www.tonataati.org/totopo/totopo1.html saludos

esta es otra http://www.noticias-oax.com.mx/articulos.php?id_sec=4&id_art=26681, te convences?

I am not denying existenz of tortilla chips and there aren't triangular totopos--kiddo 04:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't get who is going to erase, and in math there are some short powerful proofs. Gimme a few hours to expand totopo, thanx--kiddo 05:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

49 PARA
I see that you placed a prod tag on this article, proposing that it be deleted. I almost tagged it db-nonsense, but that did not seem quite appropriate. All of the text is lifted directly from the webpage at the bottom of the article, so a copyvio tag would seem to be called for. But the fact is, the article is just a hoax. If one reads it, and looks at the webpage referenced, it makes absolutely no sense, and is clearly intended as a joke of some sort---though, I fail to see the humour myself. The sooner we can be rid of it, the better. ---Charles 01:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've hit it up with Db-copyvio to see what happens. 68.39.174.238 02:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

About db-nonsense
That particular template doesn't take parameters. I've changed your tagging of Digby scott to db so the given rationale will be displayed. 68.39.174.238 02:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Re : Max cards
Don't think it's a good idea to close the AfD myself, given that I participated in it myself. This AfD is obvious enough, though, to any other closing sysop that this is ridden with sock/IP votes and should be discounted. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 22:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Salt the earth
I saw your comment on the slang term with salt at AFD.

After Rome finally sacked Carthage they plow the land and seeded it with salt so nothing could grow there again; to prevent the city from being rebuilt. (I'm not sure how effective this was. I seem to remember someone tried pouring salt around there pool to eliminate weeds and it not working very well because they needed so much salt to keep the weeds down.  Farm crops may be more sensitive to salt.  I think I heard pine trees are quite sensitive to salt). RJFJR 15:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for telling me the Simpsons reference, I didn't know it, but I think the Rome/Carthage reference predates it. Oh, and thank you for explaining how it was being used at AFD, I didn't know that either. RJFJR 19:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Jakob P. Steinbach
Hi Tubezone, thanks for fixing my AfD tag on this article, it seems in my haste to clean it up (possibly not helped by a haze of alcohol and fatigue over me), that I messed it up. Much obliged, sir! Lankiveil 08:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

G1 and G3
Well, I think even the most ardent IARers deem process to be important as regards speedy deletion, the criteria for which are generally, I think, thought to be properly quite specific, in order that an editor applying tags or an admin deleting should be almost entirely without discretion and should act exclusively ministerially, for reasons well enumerated by KeithTyler here. It may well be that we ought to speedy articles such as Sir Charles Broccoli, and I think it likely that there is a consensus for the view that we ought to extend G1 in order to make plain that that which is obvious hoaxery and thus vandalism is speediable per G3, the present discord between G3 and G1 notwithstanding. The present CSD, though, are not entirely clear on the subject, and speedy deletions are one area in which we are to be quite circumspect. Am I certain that Sir Charles Broccoli would not survive AfD? Yes. Am I certain that, were I to partake of its AfD discussion, I would !vote delete? Yes. Am I confident that, were this nearly any other area of policy, it would be appropriate for us to ignore all rules and to effect that which is quite obviously consistent with encyclopedic purposes (viz., deletion)? Yes. We should never, though, IMHO, IAR in tagging articles for speedy deletion or in deleting articles so tagged, and I believe there to be a consensus for the view that IAR ought never to be invoked relative to speedy deletions. There are two discussions at the CSD talk page apropos of issues very similar to this, and you should surely participate; I think it clear that most in the community (amongst which number I count myself) think the likes of Sir Charles Broccoli should be speedied but are not certain that such articles, in view of the G1-G3 (and perhaps -A1) disconnect, are speediable at present; whether the community supports the ignoring of all rules in such instances is a closer question, and one about which I'm not sure one can draw any conclusion (one hopes we'll ultimately clarify G1 in the context of A3). All that said, though, I know that most admins patrolling new pages and those articles tagged for speedy would delete Sir Charles Broccoli as db-nonsense, and so I wouldn't object in the least to your retagging the article. Thanks very much, in any case, for your note, of the cordiality and logic of which I am appreciative. :) Joe 06:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Yeouinaru Station
Hi Tubezone. I recall you were part of the discussion on the AfD for Elmhurst (Metra) and thought you'd be interested in knowing this very similar AfD occuring. If you vote and/or discuss, as always, vote however you like. --Oakshade 02:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Porfirio Díaz.
No Japanese blood at all.

Sorry!!!

Joaquin Martinez

theory of everything article
Dear Tubezone,

I appreciate your interest in the theory of everything article. However, please do not revert it anymore and claim it to be vandalism. Such is not the case. Please take a closer, more considerate look, and you will see.

sincerely, Archetype —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.20.139 (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Dear Tubezone,

Again, I would implore you to re-read the article and then explain to me how it is nonsense. It could very well be, but so far you have given no justification, merely you have said it is nonsense without an explanation which I consider to be rather rude. I have never acted so to you. PLease rectify this matter, or perhaps it is a misunderstanding on my part, in which case you should explain it to me

sincerely, Archetype


 * I don't see how edits propagandizing the practicality of perpetual motion machines, especially ones coming from an editor using computers at an esteemed institution like New Mexico Tech, could be considered anything but hoaxes or vandalism. I don't know if you actually believe what you are writing or you just like a good joke, but the kind of thing you are writing will not remain in that article, if I don't delete it, someone else will. Tubezone 05:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I sincerely appreciate your concern that this may be a hoax. Thank you also for finally replying.  You wikipedians are very dilligent folk and rightfully so.  However, I can assure you that your difficulty in comprehending the possibility of perpetual motion is tied directly to your inability to understand the true definition of 1/0, which is not undefined, but rather, it is the amount of energy that exists all things being told.  I fully understand your reluctance, but consider this matter.  Scientists cannot understand why the universe is expanding faster and faster.  Until we denote a source for the energy which causes this expansion, it is seemingly being created out of nowhere, thus calling into question the very foundations of physics.  I have solved the riddle by realizing that the energy which causes the universe to expand comes directly from the source, 1/0.  This may seem like a joke but just think about it for a moment.  If 0/1 is nothing (as well as 0/2, 0/3, etc.), then it is quite obvious that 1/0 is everything (same thing as 2/0, 3/0, etc.), and this is the total amount of energy in existence.  This amount of energy is inexhaustible and it is what causes the universe to expand.  Not only do I have the theory to explain it, but I also have a working device in my posession right now which proves it.  If you will offer just the slightest bit of credence, I will upload a video file proving it all to you.  I can send you the plans and you can build one for yourself and see (it must be built precisely).  So, will you offer me a bit of credence in return for the opportunity to see this amazing proof?  I guarantee you, you won't be dissappointed.

sincerely, Archetype —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.20.121 (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Yeouinaru Station deletion
Hi. Per the closing result of the Yeouinaru Station AfD, I opened a Deletion Review of this. You might be interested in weighing in on the discussion. Thanks! --Oakshade 02:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for covering my gaffes on the Creative Cosmos deletion nomination. Its hard to nominate an article for deleion when I've got each step in a seperate window, and someone else is trying to get me to book concert tickets as well. Again thanx! -- saberwyn 11:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

La decena trágica
I'd call them piranas if I was writing a blog entry, but not in an article on the Wikipedia. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a polemic.

The article itself does a pretty good job of describing the actions of Francisco I. Madero, Victoriano Huerta, and their compadres. A person of average intelligence will realize that they were dirty rotten scoundrels, so you don't have to call them piranas.

That's the reason that I added the tone tag to the page. There is just a little too much 'tell' and not enough 'show' in the descriptions.

re: Your comment at talk:Burrito. Sometimes on a talk page it is hard to tell the tone of different people's comments. If you were trying to be humerous with your intense rhetoric, it did not come across as such. If it was meant as an attack on Viriditas, then it has no place on the Wikipedia (see WP:NPA for Wikipedia policy). Blank Verse 22:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * All you need to do is note that most of the bureaucrats remained because they're already described as "hated reactionary cientifico bureaucrats". "Piranas" or "machiavellian bureaucrats" is overkill.


 * The same with "cunning, ruthless and ambitious nature that made Huerta...". Change that to "ambitious nature", because the rest of the article shows that he was also cunning and ruthless. Blank Verse 05:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, normally I would agree. But this incident was a Mexican equivalent of Pearl Harbor or 9/11, in that it transfixed and changed the whole country (and resulted in major changes in US sympathies and policies towards Mexico, too). Laying on a few extra adjectives is worthwhile to put across to the reader the tension and drama of the situation. I don't think the article is going to die by having a few adjectives pulled out, but I think you're splitting hairs over a few words, when overall, it's a good article. I do appreciate you discussing this rather than making arbitrary edits. Tubezone 08:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Attack on Pearl Harbor is a very good example. Read the article&mdash;It is very strait forward. The only time that it used adjectives like "treacherous" or "sneaky attack" is way down at the bottom in the Cultural impact section where it talks about the use of those adjectives in Allied propoganda.


 * The problem is that laying on all those extra adjectives is actually hurting the credibility of the article, because people will assume that it is a biased article. You should follow the the example of the "Attack on Pearl Harbor" which lets the descriptions of the actions of the Japanese tell the story, and which doesn't use any loaded adjectives. Blank Verse 10:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)