User talk:Hackwrench

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]]

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Hi, I see you have found the Ochlocracy page. It looks a little botched. Mr. Tudoreanu doesn't agree with the occurences of the word. We are still discussing it. So, you might find that he will revert it back. Welcome aboard. WHEELER 18:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Faster than light[edit]

Your article titled "faster than light travel" has been deleted because it wasn't an article at all. Here is the text: If you absorb light from all sides, is there no limit to the "speed" you can go? After all, there is no light to clock you. User:hackwrenchRobert Claypool

You might want to ask this question at the reference desk. Joyous 00:15, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Some more is at Talk:Faster than light travel. JRM 00:38, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

Joseph newman[edit]

Besides being wrongly capitalised, this article has little content that would be of use to those wanting to know about this person. I suggest you change the tone of it to make it into an encyclopedia article, otherwise it is liable to be deleted. Deb 17:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

War on emotion[edit]

It's possible that this article violates the no original research policy. At any rate, it's currently up for deletion, so if you feel it should be kept, you might want to get involved in the discussion there. Friday (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Your action of removing content from the emotion page and putting it on a new war on emotion page was inappropriate. The funny thing is that I agree with you that this content represented a limited POV, but we can arrive at that result better through intelligent discussion than through rash provocative deletions and postings. I'd appreciate if you'd take a deep breath and cool your own emotions down a bit before making changes to articles. sallison 20:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Hackwrench. I just saw your recent changes to the War on emotion page. I'm very happy to see that you have steered away from what originally seemed like a personal attack on another author and more towards a theme that may (or may not) be accepted as an important theme/idea by others. My initial concern has abated. Many thanks for your efforts in this regard, it is commendable. Best wishes, sallison 08:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


Mediation[edit]

Hello Hackwrench... I'm Redwolf24 and I am the chair of the mediation committee. I regret to inform you that we are swamped with cases, and every mediator on our committee is busy. However there's good news. WP:TINMC is a mediation alternative. If you're interested in mediation still, file there. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Mediation on The Andy Griffith Show dispute[edit]

Hi there! As a member of the Mediation Cabal, I've taken care of mediation of the issues regarding The Andy Griffith Show. I've already filled myself in the details, but before proceeding, I'd like everyone interested to offer me a (very) brief view of the core dipute before proceeding. Any suggestions and thoughts will be heeded. Regards and hugs, Shauri Heart.gif smile! 23:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscience[edit]

Hey, just letting you know that requests for renaming categories should be listed on WP:CfD rather than WP:RM. --Qviri 17:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

And when you lose a renaming vote you shouldn't go ahead and create your preferred category anyway. CalJW 20:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

For future visitors to this page, I created the category in addition to the category that lost the vote to rename, not to replace it so CalJW's statement is out of line. Hackwrench 17:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments on RfAr[edit]

I saw you made a few comments on my Arb Com statement. I will repsond to those in a couple of days (going somewhere now), but could you please collect them together and make a statement on your own? This is just how it is done on RfAr, otherwise the statements will be very hard to read. -- Heptor talk 15:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, inserting comments within other people's statements on RfAr is prohibited. I have removed Hackwrench's comments (again, noting that Ryan Delaney already did so and Hackwrench reinstated them). Hackwrench, you are hereby warned not to do this again. If you continue to disregard the Arbitration Committee's rules on this matter, you may find yourself blocked. You may add a section of your own to the request for arbitration if you feel you have something to say that the Committee needs to hear. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Where is the prohibition notice? When Ryan Delaney did it. i had nothing to go on to tell me it was anything more than his personal preference, but now that two people have weiged in I have to give it more credencs. Also I don't see what purpose the prohibition serves. Hackwrench 17:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
"This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment." It says so right on top of the Requests for Arbitration page; has for a very long time. The RfAr page and all subpages thereof are subject to the exclusive authority of the Arbitration Committee. And since I am an Arbitrator, you had better well give my comment credence, as I have the unquestioned authority to remove discussion from the page at any time. The purpose of this rule is to make Requests for Arbitration easier to comprehend by the Arbitration Committee, and to reduce the tendency of fights to break out on or within Arbitration pages. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration policy[edit]

Wikipedia:Arbitration policy was hammered out by the arbitrators during a long process. Please leave it alone. Fred Bauder 20:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome to make comments on the talk page Fred Bauder 20:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Please answer in detail[edit]

Why is it fair the 2-letter combinations get their special dis-ambiguation template but letter-number combinations don't?? (Please answer with detail.) Georgia guy 23:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

But why?? I see no reason that, if 2-letter combinations are allowed to have their own template, letter-number combinations cannot. How are they different?? Georgia guy 00:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Snud change?[edit]

Do you know Snud and why the hell did you change a bunch of shit on there I'm this guys cousin!

-- Because it is bound for deletion if serious changes aren't made to the entry to make it read more encyclopedic. Hackwrench 03:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Halting problem[edit]

Regarding whether "trouble" contains unreachable code:

  • If "halt" has a constant result, then it can't be a solution to the halting problem because some programs halt and some don't.
  • If "halt" is not constant, then nothing in "trouble" is a priori unreachable, because the only branch depends on external input.

In most languages and systems it is quite easy to put obviously unreachable code in a valid program. But as described above, you can reach the conclusion without ever having to consider how thoroughly the system excludes unreachable code. Gazpacho 08:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the proof sketch in an attempt to clear up the confusion. Gazpacho 21:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Page protection[edit]

Hi Hackwrench,

I semi-protected both your user and user talk pages last night because of a persistent vandal using several IP addresses. When you're back here editing again let me (or another admin) know so we can unprotect, especially the talk page, if you wish. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

How to add composer to show template?[edit]

How do I add the composer to the Andy Griffith show template?Dogru144 00:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Internet Channel[edit]

I redirected the article back. The content is adequately covered in the article, is pretty much a duplicate of the article, and a version of Opera for the Wii is really not notable. Nevermind. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you please work on your English? I said nevermind. So basically, you are complaining for NOTHING. Stop being disruptive. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it'd fit more in "Nevermind, I changed my mind after looking at other Opera pages, and you need to stop being a bad Wikipedian". Arrogance doesn't become you, especially when you have nothing to be arrogant about.
Grow up, kid. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Not to a huge jerk, A Link to the Past but you have a history of disruptive edits! --Jonathan Williams 05:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Such as calling someone a "sinner" and telling another Wikipedian that they broke a nonexistent policy.
Oh, wait, that's someone else involved in this discussion. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It'd be keen if you could stop disrupting Wikipedia, thanks. - A Link to the Past (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Apology[edit]

While I still feel that most of the Wii Channels do not warrant their own articles at this time, I should have conducted myself. However, in the future, I will not "bother" to discuss all merges, merely those that I don't think will be controversial (and will check discussions to make sure there weren't move discussions already). But if I do merge a seemingly uncontroversial article, I will not edit war in a situation where someone unmerges it, but rather, discuss it. I also apologize for any insults, rudeness, or sarcasm. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I intended to include insults, sarcasm, and general rudeness, but I must have been too focused on the initial apology. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
What? I said I apologized for MY rudeness. What point is there in even continuing this? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
...Okay? See, that is a disruptive act - by intentionally not accepting an apology, you unnecessarily create conflict and that disrupts Wikipedia by forcing both editors to not want to edit Wikipedia with each other. There is nothing in this universe that I can or will do to end this discussion on a good note besides apologize. So if you do not wish to accept it, stop sending messages. I still give it, and do not care if you accept it. As any further messages from you attempting to continue the conflict serve no purpose other than to continue it, they will be removed. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Frank Grimes[edit]

The problem is that all merge discussions resulted in the idea being shot down. The only action that remains is to AfD it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussions have resulted in "no merge", the mergeto tag was removed per those discussions. There's really only one possible option left. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman[edit]

Circle-style-warning.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Nomination of The American Enterprise for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The American Enterprise is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The American Enterprise until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Herp Derp (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)