User talk:Tubezone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Hudson

Re: "I want to assume good faith here, but it seems like you and some other British folk are engaging in some vanity denial..."

I ask that you ~~strikethrough~~ these remarks. They are distracting, irrelevant to the substance of the AFD discussion, and demonstrably untrue, at least with respect to Bwithh, who consistently argues to delete articles about people who are the subjects of senstational news stories, whether British or American or whatever (I remember one about a Palestinian too). Thanks. Pan Dan 16:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you've rejoined the discussion (and I'm glad you have), and since you ignored my last request, I ask you again to strike through or remove your earlier distracting, irrelevant and unsubstantiated remarks about bad faith. I'm glad you didn't raise this non-issue again, but there is no need to have these remarks in the archive of the debate once it's over. Thanks. Pan Dan 13:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Geez, if you're not gonna retract those comments as I ask, the least you could do is tell me why not. Pan Dan 13:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't making a statement of fact, just making an observation about what seemed to me to be happening. No one else objected. The comment was irrelevant to the determination of whether the article was to be kept of not, like usual, the admin followed the guidline and ignored the distractions. Moot point anyway as the discussion is closed. Tubezone 05:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

At last a reply! Thanks for that. Now, I've got another bone to pick with you. Your comparison in the debate of the delete arguments to WP:PARROT, and your patronizing comment that "The guidelines have been explained, even an admin explained them" are breathtakingly arrogant. You obviously disagreed with the delete voters, but you should have respected the quality and thoughtfulness of their arguments. (Wasn't that long ago you were making some pretty shaky arguments yourself, claiming that WP:AFDP is policy; then when I pointed out that it's not policy you called it "de facto" policy; then when I noted the recently deleted high schools and GNAA contra precedent, you bailed out of the debate). Finally, your request to an admin to close the Hudson debate while the discussion was ongoing slammed a door in the face of the delete voters and was incredibly rude. If you weren't enjoying the debate, all you had to do was comment no further. Note that the real disussion began only after re-listing and lasted only 2 1/2 days, not 5. (You don't have to respond to my tirade, obviously you don't enjoy arguing, and I can't say that I blame you. Just had to get that off my chest.) Regards, Pan Dan 15:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Hudson debate lasted much longer than normal for an AfD debate, it was time to close the damn thing. My reasons for "bailing", commenting or not commenting, are none of your business, I am hardly the only voice in an AfD debate, I do not control debates and do not have to answer to YOU and will not. It's up to the admins to decide how to close an AfD debate, not me. Sometimes I'm on the losing side, if I think I have a case, I might take it to deletion review or renominate an article if I think it's that important. If the admins thought I was premature in asking to close the debate, they would have said so, they've turned down other requests, it's not a gimme that they'll do what I ask. Your comments on the Rachel Hudson debate were breathtakingly repetitive, and, yes, citing WP:PARROT was rather apt, IMHO. Tubezone 06:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Hudson

Looks like someone closed it out already. Thanks, NawlinWiki 14:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversions in soccer teams

I reverted most of your edits, basically because now that the Apertura 2006 season is over, the Clausura 2007 season starts. I did, however, leave the fact that Chivas won the championship. Because it is a recent event, it may be judged as relevant enough to be in the starting paragraph, but as time goes by, it may have to be moved.

Additionally, I want to say that it is important to assume good faith. In general, Instinkt's edits where not as bad, but I happened to have extra information on Tigres that he/she lacked, and that probably prompted to erase good information on the article page. In the same way, it can be argued that perhaps he was not ignorant of the fact that Chivas won the championship this year, merely he did not judged it relevant enough to be in the starting paragraph. As I said, it is because its a recent event, but as time goes by, it would need to be moved. Remember to assume good faith, and resolve all differences by talking. That is why we have talk pages.

Saludos desde Phoenix! Hari Seldon 16:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree about assuming good faith, but in the case of potential mass vandalism, I would rather revert and let the editors sort out what should stay. Unfortunately in some cases bad information has remained in articles for months. Thank you for reviewing and correcting the articles. Tubezone 16:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your interest in my edits. Indeed, Hari Seldon was on target when he/she assumed that my edits were simply good natured attempts to avoid clutter and misinformation on certain pages. Case in point, the Chivas article has way too much recent information that unnecessarily lengthens the article. Also, many of the sub-sections on the page, mainly "The loss of the Big 6 during Clausura 2006", have several syntactic errors. I've been trying to judge if the information is worthy of a new article, requires an edit shortening the sub-section, requires merging into another section, or total deletion in itself. I assure you, these edits would only be made in order to stop the growing bias in the team's recent history as opposed to its storied past. I believe there should be a balance between the two, considering that we're talking about a team's history that now spans 101 years. If we have 4 or 5 paragraphs for Chivas' last year alone, imagine if we wrote 4-5 paragraphs for each and every year of their history! Once again, I thank you for the attention that you provided into many of my edits. If, in the future, you continue to have issues with some of my edits, feel free to visit my talk page! Great job on being a keen observer. It's editors like you that makes Wikipedia great. ¡Hasta Luego! Instinkt 05:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wolfdog

I've taken a look, and feel you've done a great job identifying additional sources and tidying and tightening things up a bit. Minor editorial things I continue to wonder about include 1) is it proper to list The Wolf-Dog Hybrid - An Overview of a Controversial Animal both as an external link and a reference, and 2) is there a way to consolidate multiple references to this same source to one? I'll look in to this over the next few days ... unless someone else does it first. It'll be interesting to see what feedback there is over the next week or two regarding this topic. Thanks for your fine work! Keesiewonder 01:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for finding an example of the combined references. And the USDA link as an external reference plus a cited source is just fine. The real controversy and "fun" will come when the wolfdog people read the article ... Get ready ... :-) ... Hope you had a nice holiday! Keesiewonder 12:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beit Shalom

Total hoax. I prodded. Good catch. - crz crztalk 04:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pancho Villa

Hi, I'd like to clarify that my addition to the Pancho Villa article was not a random act of Vandalism. I would like to remind you that careful cosideration is necessary when evaluating the need for a revert. A short study of my contributions should have alerted you that I am not just another vandal. The trigger finger of Pancho Villa is ACTUALLY for sale at a store in Downtown El Paso, Texas. I do understand that "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising." And agree that the asking price of the finger should not be included in the article. I felt that its inclusion may serve to demonstrate the authenticity of the finger. Somnabot 17:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"El Dedo Pistola de Pancho Villa" was written up in El Diario de Juarez and on TV Azteca within the last month. I cannot produce any materials on the stories from the web, but I do have a hard copy of El Diario with the story in it. After taking a good look at the finger, I can tell you it is certainly real and certainly human. Interestingly, the pawn shop in question is located in the Montgomery Building two doors down (on the other side of where the old Vogue theater stood) from the building where Porfirio Díaz from the front balcony that still stands today saluted Ignacio Zaragoza while he was standing on South El Paso St.

It's a shame the Herald Post went defunct. The Times has since become a loose mouthpiece. Somnabot 18:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

El Diario de Juarez ran the article on 12/17/06. The title of the article was "Venden su puesto dedo de Pancho Villa en EP". TV Azteca ran their story about it this morning on EP channel 11. I tried to search for it myself, but the search really didn't turn up anything. Hope this helps. Somnabot 20:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Found it, sort of: (En Español). Somnabot 07:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Found it for sure: Local TV Station Local News Paper —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Somnabot (talk • contribs) 23:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Userfied Spam articles

I believe the consensus currently is to allow a User to copy an article to userspace, so that it could be re-written to conform to guidelines. I think a MfD would be more appropriate. Agathoclea 18:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not possible to rewrite a complete hoax to conform with anything. This user is presently using his account for no purpose but vandalism and creating fake articles, after repeated warnings, he needs an indefinite block and user page deleted. Tubezone 18:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The tetleys

I see that you added a {{db}} tag to The tetleys, which is probably correct. I was the one who added the {{hoax}} tag, because it didn’t ring true, and I could not find them on allmusic.com. In the end I added the {{hoax}} tag because I was not sure and I don’t know much about rock bands. ●DanMS 19:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to User talk:Bigsteeve

Please don't abuse tags. This is not {{test3}} material. This is a boring content dispute. Admittedly one that's been talked to death, but well within the bounds of bold editing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You may well be right that he's vandalised anonymously, but his edits today don't justify {{test3}} and {{test4}}, although messing around with your user page does merit warnings. Still, so far as I'm aware we only worry about links between ips and editors when bans and blocks are involved. Anyway, no Glenfiddich here, horrible stuff. Try Bruichladdich, much better. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If this were a first time thing, I'd agree. But both items have been discussed to death, I know but little about Scotland, but continuing to insert allusions of wolf heritage of German Shepherds into WP over and over is simply vandalism at this point. The consensus is that no such proven connection in recorded history is documented, I've reverted such comments out of the German Shepherd article several times with no disputes. There seems to be an ongoing campaign to try and insert such allusions into articles about certain dog breeds, unless there's a documented and proven connection, those comments simply don't belong. Tubezone 00:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal

I am not a vandal. I can explain my situation. I tagged the page with a {{db-author}} tag because I wanted to start it from scratch due to all the ORs and false info. it was getting. I originally started the page and editors mostly added non-sense to it. --Ineffable3000 01:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine, redo the article in your sandbox then paste it in. No one is going to delete an article on a South Park episode on your say-so. Lastly, what's in a an article is supposed to be editor consensus, not you deciding that an article is bad, that's what talk pages and arbitration requests are for. Tubezone 06:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill thundercliff AFD Anti-Hoax Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I award this barnstar to Tubezone for their excellent historical research in the Bill thundercliff AFD, proving the article was a hoax. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 17:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion tagging while an article is undergoing AfD

In response to your puzzlement - adding a speedy deletion tag to an article that is undergoing AfD is an open invitation to subvert the AfD process. There are plenty of articles that are deleted during AfD prior to expiry of the full period of recommended days. If I had not been otherwise involved in the article (i.e. initially removing the speedy tag as a matter of process preservation) I would likely be deleting the article myself. It will be deleted - no doubt about that. Patience. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

... article in question was cyberzapped as the above was written by the admin. ;-) Tubezone 04:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Favor

Can you figure out whether the following users are really one and the same? I'm immersing myself in the AfD for Thakur Sher Singh Parmar. If you know how to do this, maybe you can teach me your tricks? Thanks!

Coolcoolcoolest

Latasupriya

Jayantiben

Monishasarkar

Amita karpe

Also, check out the latter's contributions; I find this a bit disconcerting (i.e. removing a reasonable suggestion with such gusto ...): 10:14, December 30, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Amita karpe (→Comments - LAST NOT REQUIRED)

Keesiewonder 16:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User:Rugbyball

Thanks for the update on him. A quick look at his edit history suggested a WP:POINT was being made, but I wasnt sure where it was coming from. Resolute 19:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfDs and CSDs

A couple of days ago, I had an admin defer to speedy tag and delete an article because an AfD had already been raised. Which is why I removed the CSD of that obvious candidate! Looks like I'll have to dig around and see what the rules are. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 01:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No harm in the double notification I guess, more chance of getting an admin's eye. Thanks. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 02:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Commodore 64 BASIC code

Your Commodore 64 BASIC code from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bronte (language) is mostly right, but it contains a few errors. Here is what would happen:

10 FOR NN = 1 TO 10
20 IF X = "HOAX" TYPE "DELETE"
30 NEXT NN
40 RETURN
RUN

?TYPE MISMATCH ERROR IN 20
READY.
20 IF X$ = "HOAX" TYPE "DELETE"
RUN

?SYNTAX ERROR IN 20
READY.
20 IF X$ = "HOAX" THEN TYPE "DELETE"
RUN

?SYNTAX ERROR IN 20
READY.
20 IF X$ = "HOAX" THEN PRINT "DELETE"
RUN

?RETURN WITHOUT GOSUB ERROR IN 40
40
RUN

READY.

JIP | Talk 10:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Joshy'z Krazy Lyfe, Lunchroom Confessions

Sorry, but the db requests as written didn't specify that they were/could be prank articles, only that a banned user made them; that alone is not a mandatory speedy, and both articles appeared to merit further work. If they're pranks, please reply with details. Thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I did some further research and deleted both; thanks again for the heads-up. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone unprotected the articles and a load is coming back. I will take them to AfD to get a final ruling. Agathoclea 19:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Until June deletions.

What is the problem with Until June's pages? I knew nothing about the previous pages that were made for them and since they had no pages currently, I wanted to make them. Whatever the problem is with the current pages, I will try to fix that problem. You said something about notability. Well, I tried adding some links to help show some of their notability but someone delete them because of some extra links thing. On their album page, I added a link to a review. What else do you need? --Mister Pine 23:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting them... not!--Mister Pine 05:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I'm not an admin, I can not delete articles. Try taking up your case at WP:DRV.

[edit] Cochinita pibil

I'd appreciate it if you were to stop reverting Cochinita pibil to the state where it contains a recipe. I have now explained completely in that article's talk page as to the reasons for the recipe being excluded. Please do not include the recipe again. Thank you. --Andyroo316 04:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethiopian Wolf

i don't want to start an edit ear or anything, so i thought i'd ask first: why'd you revert my edit to this article, specifically, my removal of the species from Category:Jackals? sure, these fellas look like jackals, but genetically speaking they're no more a jackal than Lassie is. - Metanoid 04:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

no response - i'm reverting your revert. have a lovely day! - Metanoid 02:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mexican Revolution

I am not a Vandal, I am an historian and political scientist trying to fix the article and that goes for the Rostow's model of economic development. I linked it to a good summary of it. Who are you anyway? Previous appears to be from 03:37, January 21, 2007 Astharoth1

Hey Tubezone, I moved this thread from top of your page w/o a proper section header to the bottom. Hope you don't mind ... and hope you're well. Keesiewonder ^talk 11:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MaxCards

I will challenge you "Tubezone" to a One vs One game of MaxCards, the "unreal" game at which you deleted, after a perfectly legimate article was made for it on wikipedia.

[edit] SOCOM AfD

While I appreciate anyone who tried to help weed out articels on hoaxes, the AfD on the nonexistent SOCOM game was no cause for such acrimony. 68.39.174.238 23:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MAXCARDS

I, spponboy, also challenge you to a game of maxcards.....you, tubezone, have been inserted at the bottom of the maxcards league on the maxcards forum.......Work your way to the top! --Spoonboy44 12:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tamaskan Dog recreation

It's back, courtesy of Blufawn. Any input you could give on the talk page would be welcome.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI Keesiewonder ^talk 22:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Ozzie-billete-sm.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ozzie-billete-sm.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CHICOTW

I see your user name listed as a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago. I do not know if you are aware that we are attempting to revive the CHICOTW. See our results history. We could use additional input in nominating future articles, voting on nominees and editing winning nominees. Should you contribute you will receive weekly notices like the following:

	Chicago Collaboration of the Week
Last week you voted for the Chicago COTW. Thank you! This week Rich Melman has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list.
	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago

TonyTheTiger 01:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of taco fillings

Almost forgot to notify you: this article and List of burrito fillings are up for AFD. (I didn't actually AFD them myself, that's probably why I forgot to notify the author. That's my excuse, anyways...)--Brianyoumans 23:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Pri-logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Pri-logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 19:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SOCOM 4 Page has been revived

Hey Tubezone. User Randomoss has restored the SOCOM 4 page to its former squalor after we all agreed to delete it via Afd. He has backed up the page on his user page so he can re-paste the hoax in again and again. You're a lot more active on wikipedia than I am, and I wouldn't really know what to do about this besides nominating the SOCOM 4 page for deletion again, which I'm sure is not the proper action to take, so I guess I'm asking for your help in getting this page nuked, and what to do about corrective action against Randomoss, if necessary.

Tzepish 02:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have since changed the page to state that it is a rumored title and nothing more, but I expect Randomoss to revert me. Tzepish 02:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate X-Men (story arcs): Peer Review

Greetings! In December of 2006, you participated in the discussion for the 2nd deletion nomination of Ultimate X-Men (story arcs). After two months of rewriting, reorganizing, and referencing, the article is now undergoing a WikiProject Comics peer review. Your editorial opinion would be most welcome to help us improve the article to A-class status. Thanks for your time! - fmmarianicolon | Talk 06:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/u/b/User_talk%7ETubezone_0b9e.html"