User talk:Tractorkingsfan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

What's up everybody, first off I'd like to point out that I'm a guy and can be referred to as he/him. I also call everybody "dude" so don't flip out about it, the word is not gender-specific to me. I usually respond on your talk page if you leave me a message here, but I keep everything I edit on my watchlist so I'll know wherever you choose to respond to a comment I make. Thanks and say whatever you want! It's a talk page not a govenment document.--Tractorkingsfan 12:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Excuse me?

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. Tractorkingsfan 12:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert of vandalism

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

[edit] Apanupaq

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)

[edit] Power to the people!

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)

[edit] AfD: Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate

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)

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. Tractorkingsfan 10:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


Trying to add speedy delete tag to article on Jim Mansfield, user TotalCarb (original author) keeps erasing it without explanation. What should I do? Tractorkingsfan 04:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If he keeps removing it, just add [[Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]] at the bottom too. It'll keep it in the category. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy Trash

You might like to use the Template:Infobox Band instead. I've had a fiddle with the format. You might just want to get some more third party coverage links (especially for the tour info) for verifiability. Band seems notable enough. I do a lot of band and album articles, so if you need any help just ask! Bubba hotep 10:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool thanks I like what you've done. Tractorkingsfan 10:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How it does work

I suppose the easiest I could do is point you to some reading material... m:voting is evil, WP:DDV, WP:CCC, WP:PPP. The gist of it is that Wikipedia strives for consensus, and this is better reached by discussion than by voting. Voting tends to represent issues as binary "yes - no" "us versus them", and can preclude a compromise from being reached (e.g. everyone votes for red or yellow, with no supermajority either way, but we could have discussed and reached an acceptable compromise on orange).

With respect to process (e.g. deletion), it is true that in most cases the debate is closed in favor of the majority, but it doesn't have to be. First, we look dimly upon "vote stacking", canvassing or making alternate accounts to sway the vote, and tend to discount that. Second, good arguments are important, and votes based on "I like this" or "I haven't heard of that" may be ignored; in the extreme, "copyright violation" is an argument for deletion that trumps any amount of "votes" to keep. And third, it's always good if people are debating on possible alternatives (e.g. merging, rewording, renaming, removing most but not all of the text, whatever). HTH! (Radiant) 12:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  • 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)

[edit] Matt Stone

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 libertarian is not middle grounded, since they tend to be more liberal than Democrats on social issues and more right wing than Republicans on things like Welfare. What I'm actually talking about is why people insist on saying "though he previously claimed to be a Republican" when that was probably just a joke. Please sign your posts and refrain from trying to educate me on things which have little to do with the intent of the original comment. Also, "libertian"? "his a middle grounded"? These are meaningless words. Thanks, Tractorkingsfan 12:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Christianity

Firstly, I was not trying to make User:LonelyBoy (or anyone, for that matter) look stupid. Secondly, I was merely correcting him. But you don't believe it either. So, I'll show you how I "prove divinity" by proving that the Bible really was writen by God:

  • There are many powerful statements of insperation in the Scriptures.

"All sripture is given by insperation of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instuction in righteousness." 2 Tim. 3:16

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Pet. 1:21

"The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and His word was in my tongue." 2 Sam. 23:2

"the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah" Ezra 1:1

"this scripture...which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake" Acts 1:16

  • The phrase "Thus saith the Lord" and similar phrases are found over 3,800 times in the Old Testament.
  • The human writers realized that God was giving them the words.

"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying..." Exod. 25:1

"Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the Lord hath spoken." Isa. 1:2

"The words of Jeremiah... To whom the word of the Lord came in the days of Josiah." Jer. 1:1-2

  • The words of Moses are connected with the words of Christ.

"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" John 5:46-47

"If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31

  • Christ placed His stamp of approval on the Scriptures.

"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matt. 4:4

  • The judgemant attached to adding to or takning away from the words of Scripture shows God's attitude toward the importance of His Word. In three different passages God warns about adding to His Word.

"What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." Deut. 12:32

"Every word of God is pure... Add thou not unto his words." Prov. 30:5-6

"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book." Rev. 20:18

It is interesting to note that these warnings occur at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of God's Word.

  • Very few other books claim to be the Word of God. Those that do (the Koran and the Book of Mormon) are filled with anachronisms and historical inaccuracies.
  • We accept the authorship of realiable literature until proven otherwise.

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)

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)

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)


[edit] Lonelyboy

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)

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, -- THLRCCD 23:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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, -- THLRCCD 23:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Looking for some help from an admin

Trying to edit Stephon Marbury. I recently made an edit with no problem, but now when I attempt to edit the page a blank page shows up with no content at all in the edit box. Not a problem I know how to fix. Thanks, --Tractorkingsfan 00:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Cool, thanks --Tractorkingsfan 00:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laguna Beach: The Real Orange County

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)

[edit] Open Air Stereo

Your edits to the article have definitely been an improvement. I added an unreferenced template though, because the article doesn't cite its sources. Khatru2 20:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, I was thinking of doing that myself. Cheers, --Tractorkingsfan 20:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Final Statement

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)

[edit] My editor review

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)

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)

[edit] I agree that it's notable

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)

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, --Tractorkingsfan 11:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage message moved to Usertalk

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

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)

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. --Tractorkingsfan 22:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sigma Alpha Mu

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)

[edit] RE:My RfA

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/a/User_talk%7ETractorkingsfan_0b20.html"