User talk:Tractorboy60

'''This user has retired from this thankless task due to having found that supplying my specialist knowledge is rewarded by some fascist punk complaining about small details in my wikification while paying no attention to the quality of the material. I've got better things to do than this.'''

List of people from Bolton
I'm sorry, but I didn't understand your message about this article. As I understand it, it doesn't need moving or deleting, it just requires some additional verification. Jza84 11:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I do apologise, I now see that User:UnitedStatesian altered this article, and not you. Tractorboy60 11:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Molasses.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Molasses.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 18:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Agriculture
Hey Tom, thanks for signing up and welcome to Project. As you've noticed already, even though this is on my user space, it's already a group effort. I'm really surprised this didn't exist already. Also, please add your name on the Project page (not just the proposals page) with any interests, etc. if you like. That way when we move to Wikipedia space we won't have to cut and past users, etc. Thanks. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Help with class
Hello, I am doing a class project and we need to write a wikipedia article. I was wondering if you could look at my article and see what you think. My article is titled cultivator. Thank you ghmd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghmd (talk • contribs) 13:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure at what grade you are working at but the article, although small, seems fairly competent. I am not so familiar with US terminology but in England we call the shanks TINES. We talk about fixed tine and spring tine cultivators. A spring tine leg is sometimes called a pigtail tine, because of its shape. You also have heavy and light cultivators. A heavy cultivator with fixed tines is called a chisel plough when the tines face forward. A light cultivator is more like a harrow and usually has more tines. The soil engaging tip of the tine is replaceable and is called a point. The cultivator you have in your photo has 4 wearing parts on the tine, the upper and lower point, and 2 wings. In very dry abrasive conditions, the points may only last a week before becoming blunt and requiring replacement. The wings create a boiling action for better soil mixing. The yellow gear at the rear is called a packer roller. It can be adjusted for height and is used for depth control and compacting the seed bed behind the machine to reduce moisture loss. It's hollow design prevents clogging with wet soil. The tines are arranged in 3 rows with plenty of room between them in all dimensions, to avoid the machine becoming clogged up with weeds and crop residues. I'm not sure about the invention in 1977. Cultivators have been around for more than 100 years. Also, raising and lowering: very large machines - more than 6 metres, usually have hydraulic depth wheels, while smaller machines, being lighter, are raised on the tractor 3 point linkage. Because of modern mechanised cultivation methods, cultivators are far less common than they once were. The machine shown is primarily designed for stubble cleaning, i.e. pulling up the soil after the combine has harvested the crop, sometimes avoiding the need for ploughing, a slow and expensive operation. Low-till tillage, as this is called, is an American speciality and other countries closely follow development in the US. The idea is to create a first tilth, sometimes called a "stale seedbed", to make weeds germinate. When the seedbed is made later on in order to drill the crop, the germinated weeds are killed, reducing the need for expensive herbicides (hopefully). I hope this is useful and not too confusing, it is from memory and not from my old college notes, but good luck with the project. Tom 19:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

my point : Feminism
ok this may be complicated and i may break the rules of what the talk pages are supposed to be use for to explain this.

So the article says

"Feminist political activists have been concerned with issues such as a woman's right of contract and property, a woman's right to bodily integrity and autonomy (especially on matters such as reproductive rights, including the right to abortion"

the way that it is worded it says abortion is a right.

it would kind of be like saying

"animals rights people protest to help animals because animals are important too."

that is not neutral. a neutral statement would be

"animals rights people protest to help animals because they believe animals are important too.

all i want is the article to be neutral. i kind of put my own believe in there and didnt really make clear what i wanted and im sorry. i am in favor for abortion in some cases but i dont want abortion to be called a right. im not trying to start a debate just want to make the article neutral.69.106.250.135 03:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Listen, I am only on that page for the history, not the politics. If I might give you some advice, the way to go forward is to do some editing, be bold. For this you need citations. People rarely get anywhere here by lobbying on the Talk pages, it reduces credibility by coming across as WP:POV. By editing you are putting yourself on the same level as other editors, showing your confidence. If you have a properly referenced and credible point, no one can remove it without undermining their own right of contribution. Tom 07:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Milk
I replaced the comment by Erudecorp on Talk:Milk. WP:TALK indicates generally not removing others' comments from Talk pages. I think that it would probably better facilitate communication, and lead toward a better article, if you were to post your rebuttal to Erudecorp's comment on Talk:Milk. ENeville 22:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't notice it was a "Talk" contribution. However, it is still rubbish, and would be reverted as vandalism if it had been on an article. How can you have a "rebuttal" to such a "contribution"? Utterly pointless... Tom 23:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ENeville: See WP:TALK: Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. Did you even so much as contact Erudecorp about this? No. Clearly one rule for some and another for others. Tom 12:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I grant that Erudecorp's comment is questionable, I think that it would be reasonable to contact Erudecorp in that regard, and I encourage you to do so if you feel the situation warrants. As to what might constitute a rebuttal on Talk:Milk, perhaps "That's rubbish," would suffice.  I am not advocating a position specific to the topic of milk, rather the manner of response.  In addition to being against guidelines, it is quite unexpected to find that material has been removed from a Talk page, and unless one is monitoring edits, there's no alert that material has been removed.  Consider how you would feel if you came back to a Talk page where you thought that you had made a comment, but found no trace of it.  Or, alternatively, if someone had responded to Erudecorp's statement, but Erudecorp had deleted the response, and that such was the state of the Talk page that you saw.  If you still think that Erudecorp's comment should be removed, perhaps you could note on Talk:Milk that a comment was made by Erudecorp and that you had removed it, giving a reason for doing so.  The point is to maintain clarity in discussion.  The reason that I remarked on the removal of material but not the salience is triage.  However, again, if you feel that a remark to Erudecorp is warranted, I encourage you to make such. ENeville 02:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, like I said before, I did not realize this was a "Talk" contribution. At the time, I just scrolled down the watchlist like one does and didn't pay attention. Comments are pointless in this example, and just draw attention to something that should be ignored. Tom 15:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Brownbagging
An article that you have been involved in editing, Brownbagging, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 14:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject East Anglia
Would you be interested in WikiProject East Anglia?

If yes, please support us here at WikiProject Council/Proposals/East Anglia. Wilbysuffolk  talk  22:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Ursula Mellor Bright
We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Ursula Mellor Bright, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from ODNB, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Ursula Mellor Bright and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Ursula Mellor Bright, in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Ursula Mellor Bright. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the material is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Ursula Mellor Bright with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Ursula Mellor Bright saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Charles Matthews (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)