User talk:Tractorkingsfan/Archive/Archive 01

Archive, for goodness sake.

So far as I know the LSD page still exists.

Yeah, I apologized to you on your talk page, but I just rechecked and you did delete the article once.

You're welcome. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It's amazing what one stumbles over while randomly mousing around. The exact birth & death dates are what caught my eye -- how could they know with such exactitude? -- and the utter lack of sources. --Calton | Talk 01:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can, and should, use speedy deletion templates when appropriate. In this case, putting {{db-bio}} at the top of the page does the trick. Have fun! yandman 15:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you meant by "Cool", but please reconsider your vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate. Memmke 09:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my original vote was "keep" with the rationale explained on the page. At which point you responded that it should be merged, which is fine, or cool, with me.

If he keeps removing it, just add [[Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]] at the bottom too. It'll keep it in the category. -

Review Me!) 04:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Cool thanks I like what you've done.

Tractorkingsfan 10:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Just a note - voting issues are not limited to AFD and RFA, although those are the most obvious examples people tend to cite. Rather, people are sometimes tempted to call a vote on article content, editor behavior, or guideline proposals. These are generally discouraged for the reasons above (representing as binary, precluding compromise). People have even been known to call a vote on whether or not a sourced fact is true. (Radiant) 09:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know Matt Stone is a libertian wich means his not a republican or a democrat his a middle grounded. Trey is also a libertian.

Just so you know, a

We assume every book in the library or bookstore bo the one whose name appears on the cover. We would never question that unless we knew someone was writing under a pseudonym or we had other good evidence to the contrary. Should we not also accept the Bible's claims of being written by the one it claims to be written by until there is evidence of deceit? --Christknight 21:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for condecsending you, but it doesn't seem like you belive the Bible the way you argue against it. And you missed the idea on a few of my points: 1) I never said that the Bible was writen by God "directly". I said in my first point that God gave the words to the men writing. 2) About "circular reasoning", what other book claims to be written by God Himself? Those which have claimed such either did not stand the test of time or are of obviously inferior quality. And 3) I was not comparing the Bible to the other books in a library in terms of context, all I said was "Should we not also accept the Bible's claims of being written by the one it claims to be written by untill there is evidence of deceit?". And you ask how old the Bible has the world being - according to the Bible, the earth is about 6,000 years old. Why are there fossils that have been around sinse "billions oof years" before that? There aren't. Some scientists say that fossils are that old, but they never stop to think, "What if things decay faster as time passes?" They think they can measure how long something takes to decay to a certain point, but what if things decay faster the longer they decay for? It's like a snowball effect. Anyway, it does take faith to believe in God - you are right about that - but I never said it didn't take faith, did I? Just because it takes faith to believe in something doesn't mean that what you are believing in isn't the truth. --Christknight 23:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should end it. I'm extremely evangelistic, and that explains why I care so much. I can't change your mind, though, so I'll leave you with this, as with the others involved: It is better to live your life believing and find out in the end that you were wrong, than to live your life not believing and find out that you were wrong. --Christknight 00:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: Hey man, let's leave User:Christknight alone. He's obiously got a lot of strongheaded ideas, but I've been trying to argue with him and we're not getting anywhere, so let's drop it because it really has nothing to do with the encyclopedia. There are three of us on him now (you, me, and User:The Hybrid) and he's never going to back down. Just a suggestion, I have no authority on the matter, I just think we should all respect each other and move the hell on for the good of the project.

LoL! I didn't know we were all trying to knock realistic sense into the guy. I read over all your arguments and as great a points you made, they were to no avail. I think he is hopeless. But I will listen to you and just give up, seeing as how he wasn't persuaded by any of your strong points. Thank you! Lonelyboy 00:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been established by confession that Lonelyboy is an abusive sockpuppet of a previously banned user, specifically User:Twentyboy.[1] As such, his IP address has been banned for six months. Cheers, -- THLR^CCD 23:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have the flu. Luckily I got a flu shot so I should be feeling better in a couple of days. I just thought that I would let you know about Lonelyboy, seeing as you had contact with him recently. He confessed to being Twentyboy, so there really was no question about him being a sockpuppet. Yandman, who was feuding with his Twentyboy persona at the same time I was, and I decided to give him a second chance. I decided to take a hands on approach to watching him, which is why I got involved with your Christianity discussion at first. Immediately after that debate ended, Lonelyboy lashed out at me, and Yandman was forced to have his IP blocked. Lonelyboy has a tendency to get very emotional about some things, and rather than taking a Wikibreak he decides to troll. That is what got him blocked as Twentyboy and Hungrygirl, and that is what got him blocked this time. It is kind of sad, seeing as he is a good editor when he stays away from things like Christianity. Oh well, Wikipedia was a good place before him, and it is still a good place after him. Cheers, -- THLR^CCD 23:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding. <rant> I can't believe that I have to defend my self to an anon now. That person doesn't even know part of what has happened with that user. I wish that people could just stay out of things that they don't understand. </rant> Cheers, -- THLR 22:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to edit

There must have been an error or something, as the software is reading that you blanked the page. Must have been an error, that's all. But, you'll have to redo the edit, as it doens't seem to have saved. -

Review Me!) 00:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Cool, thanks --

Tractorkingsfan 00:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, this was the edit I reverted which was pretty clearly vandalism. As for the other edits, I find them all quite confusing, I don't watch the show, so really, I'm not a good judge of who's important on it. However, all the pages I revert end up on my watchlist, so I will keep an eye on it. Have you approached this editor about what s/he is trying to do? Dina 19:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to the article have definitely been an improvement. I added an unreferenced template though, because the article doesn't cite its sources.

Hey man, no hard feelings, it's cool. I also have a slight habbit of getting into arguments - especially when it comes to my beliefes. Please don't think that I have any disrespect for other beliefes; I know I made it sound that way. I always take care to respect others and their beliefes. So, though I don't really know you or your beliefes, you can be assured that you have my utmost respect. --Christknight 19:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that really meant a lot. BTW, this is a little off the subject of the subsection title, but User:Yamla decided to block the Lonelyboy account. I don't know if it really matters; I just thought that I would keep you up to date. Thanks again, cheers. -- THLR 04:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is very true. I get annoyed at the vandalism more than anything else. Trolls get blocked quickly, and with the exception of one I haven't run into them again. Vandals stick around for a little while, and are harder to get blocked. Anyway, I plan on being here for a while, and I'm glad to hear that someone thinks I'm doing a good job. Wikipedia is my hobby, and I don't want to screw it up. Cheers, -- THLR 04:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The points he brought up are correct. It needs to be cleaned up, a lot. The article in it's current state is a poor reflection on Wikipedia. If no one can improve the article, it should be deleted. The question whether all Frats should have a section on Wikipedia is another debate.. if this one is chosen to be deleted, I think precedent should follow with the other articles. Skrewler 11:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All frats, no. This frat, with chapters at so many major universities, yes. I don't think precedent is really the issue, so much as notability, which can be decided on a frat by frat basis. I just fail to see why it can't be improved. I guess I should just work on it myself (but I'm tired as hell right now). Cheers, --

Thanks! I didn't even notice it was there... Dina 21:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, it appears that the person we're communicating with (and I totally agree with your comments, btw, I tried to do some of the work on the article) has his own, by all appearances not at all vanity, article here: Jonathon Coudrille. Neat huh? I was thinking about adding a link to it into the Francis Coudrill article, but since that one needs so much work, I didn't want poor Jonathon to get accused of vanity on top of being reverted by a bot and having a "tone" tag...Dina 21:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, er, dude; the problem is that it was all so long ago, and so, was i, reasonably speaking. my time is tight: since shingles hit my optic nerve, chunks of my memory are shot, and the labour involved is simply beyond me; however there are obviously cohorts of undead insomniacs out there who might relish archive trawling among the actually dead. He wote, I believe, for 'picture post', and the UK 'TV Comic Annual' but, my father's last surviving friend out there died at ninety six last week, hence my urgency in getting this up; my mother at eighty eight doesn't know what day it is, and the little that i've found on the net is plain inaccurate; seems a pity that junk will stand where the truth will be denied because the quote was festooned in smiles. We can balance it by saying he was authoritarian, violently disapproved of alcohol and wouldn't wear socks. all true. Thanks for your help, I have to sleep now. regards, ~~Jonathon X. Coudrille~~

No problem, we will work on it for you. I agree that much information is often unfortunately false, especially with people who are not able to defend themselves. I'm sorry to hear of your health problems, my thoughts are with you; and we at WIkipedia work to get the truth out there. --

Regarding the paragraph on the founding of the chapter: like I did with the philanthropy paragraph, there are some items of fact in the paragraph (names of founders, dates) that can be extracted from the circumstantial (frosh-soph rivalry, flowery language). Truthfully, I think the biggest problem with that paragraph is it sounds like it was lifted wholesale from the pledge manual. Overall, yes, there are problems with the article, but they're fixable. —C.Fred (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I really appreciate that comment. My edit count is the biggest worry I have as far as not being approved. I'm confident in the vast majority of my edits, and I'd like to think that I'm ready. I'll be reaching 3000 edits by next Tuesday probably, and I should probably have waited until then. Oh well, that's my mistake, and I'll have to live with the results whatever they may be. I guess that if I don't get approved it really isn't that big of a deal. Most people recommend waiting at least 3 months before trying again, and by then I would have around 6500 edits if I were to plateau at where I am now (unlikely). Of course I hope to get passed this time around, but if not I'm sure that I would my second time around. Thanks again for your support; it really means a lot. Cheers, -- THL 01:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to withdraw. After reading many of the oppose votes, I decided that I wasn't ready yet. Cheers, -- THL 04:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For my anti-vandal activities, the best way of putting it is I was very liberal with Blatant Vandal warnings. I'm not sure why, but I thought that the Blatant Vandal warning was for edits that were blatantly vandalism. I guess you save that for people who deserve to get blocked even though almost no one blocks someone who hasn't received a level 4 warning. Oh well, I will listen to the advice. I'll probably try again sometime in April. Thanks for your support, and thanks for listening. Cheers, -- THL 05:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I kind of regret parts of what I wrote and I definetly see how Alan would see that as a personal attack. I hope it isn't. It's just one of those nominations which I really really don't get. He states the article as not being NPOV, original research etc. which are all valid points, however from reading his arguments I feel what he's doing is

I'll say irrelevant as much as I want. Quit provoking people. It's stupid and I just ignore you 64.149.204.158 23:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been blocked for 3 months as an abusive sockpuppet of Hungrygirl, shocking. Cheers, -- THL 04:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. This person is just trying to piss everyone off. Thus far, he has had a minimum of 4 accounts blocked, his home computer's IP blocked for 6 months, and the IP address for the LGBT Community Center in Plano, Texas blocked for 3 months. A new record! (maybe). Cheers, -- THL 20:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sick again :(. I never really got over the flu I had before, and it turned into pneumonia. This sucks. Luckily I caught it really early, so maybe the antibiotics will cure it before it gets really bad. I was scared as hell this morning when I woke up with chest pains. I was actually relieved to hear that it was pneumonia and not something with my heart. Cheers, -- THL 01:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your message to Lonelyboy. He will never be given another chance. All future socks will be blocked on sight, and Yandman, me, and others will be keeping an eye on both IP addresses. He is finished. Cheers, -- THL 03:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to respond on your talk page, but something is going on whereby I am unable to edit your page. Basic idea was thanks for letting me know about Lonelyboy. Cheers, --

Tractorkingsfan 04:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

You're asking a lot of your friends to vote for you when you were doing the RfA. That's a real cheap way to become an administrator by asking your friends to vote rather than people who don't know things about you. How you behave hypocritically such as by writing irrelevant things on talk pages (for example the undertaker talk page) and then getting mad at other uses for doing it as I have just read this page where you say you even DELETED info from a talk page because it was irrelevant. Totally hypocritical and on top of that you are not to delete info from talk pages. You do not deserve to be an administrator here at wikipedia. I will not respond to anything disrespectful to this message either. As you can see, I ignored your last messages. 64.149.204.158 22:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charming isn't he? All I can say is don't feed the trolls, and don't let them annoy you either. They are worthless to humanity, and don't deserve any power over us. Cheers, -- THL 07:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Dude, (I hope I got that right?)

Thanks so much for the encouragement and, the compliments.

The corporeal is integrated a little better with the astral than when we last communicated, doom a little, even a lot, further off. This 'pooter's been offline tho'; an auto update that disconnected the (rather rude) server at some length. I'm going to put my Pa on (naw, don't laugh...) Myspace for now, Dead Dudes department: at his request we buried him in his full stage cowboy gear, as in the picture, plated six-guns and all. a metal detector would have fits. Anyhow, season's blessings, peace, if that's still a viable commodity, and, If it Ain't, All the best anyhow, JXC Peeyess I've signed up here on the windswept rock for an idle-old-guys course on website design and management, so should be able to pull my languishing site into the late zeros.J

Haha, awesome, yeah you got it perfect, maybe point me a link to the myspace page when you get it running. Later dude. --

-- The Hybrid wishes you a Merry Christmas 06:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And happy seasonal greetings to you, also. Have a great New Year.

Bubba hotep 14:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I've grown tired of the corruption. Peace, -- The Hybrid 20:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I removed your notice. It's not simple vandalism but I felt as though it was a valid point and deserved some input. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah good call reporting it. The thing is. It's ok to edit your userpage but you really shouldn't be doing just that. It comes really close to violating

Wikipedia is not a free webspace provider. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Due to some tasteless vandalism of my userpage templates I have decided to return far earlier than I was expecting. Also, congratulations on breaking your cigarette addiction. You should be very proud. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 07:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, both my father and one of my brothers quit smoking. My father quit before I was born, but my brother didn't quit until I was around 15. He said that if I ever started he would personally beat the tar out of me. My 6'4" 275 lbs. brother intimidated 5'10" 210 lbs. me very effectively to say the least. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 08:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tool is

Also, I have never used that function. It is nothing but a mass of reverts, so any good edits taking place since that time will be lost. It is a dangerous function, and only meant to be used in the cases of vandal bots and the like. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 00:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call you names so please just grow up, I felt thats what you were being just like you think the article is not notable. What even led you into the discussion on the deletion of the band in the first place?--E tac 09:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC) I didn't call you names[reply]

Well maybe but I said it because I am trying to keep an article that wikipedia apparently sees as borderline and I decided to check out your pages since you keep harping at me with policy and I honestly didn't think yours was even as notable, I suppose that guy was in a notable band apparently so I apologize for that, but I honestly don't see why this article was nominated in the first place. To be honest I am not even really a fan of this band and like you said on your article you are having trouble finding things on them and the same goes for this band, yet you are arguing against this one and that is why I called you a hypocrite. So I am sorry if I offended you, I should have assumed good faith.--E tac 10:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hey, just wanted to let you know I respected your comment on

Thanks. The nature of internet communication in general and the nature of Wiki in particular can generate a lot of stress. We've all been in a situation where we are reacting HUGELY to something very minor. Have your say and fight for your corner for sure. But work in some other area of Wiki or sit down and have a nice cup of tea when someone starts getting personal or acting like a dick. Keep well. SilkTork 08:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I apologize for not responding to the talk page of this film article sooner. The film article isn't one of my more closely-watched articles, so I missed your message. I've suggested reading

No problem. I like the film, but it's hard to take the time to improve the articles for each film I like (as there are quite a few). I'm more of an upcoming-film person on this Wikipedia thing -- less information to worry about, and the article can be built up by its release date (you can see that being done with

talk • contrib) - 23:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank You for Smoking.