User talk:ThuranX/Archive 1

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


Hi, I started an article on André Jacob Roubo, who you quite rightly added to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Woodworking page, after doing a bit of research on him. Please go ahead and expand, correct, or otherwise edit it. (Or any other woodworking page for that matter). Thanks for bringing him up, I had seen his name mentioned a number of times. Cheers. Luigizanasi 04:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi, ThuranX. I must apologize for my untoward tone from a couple days ago. I still stand by my point, though, that you cannot characterize a broad group by a mixture of some isolated encounters, commonly held stereotypes, and hostile media. I have extensive relationships with many Chassidic individuals, and they would all look at you askance if you told them about some sort of exclusionist three generation rule or something else of the kind. Unfortunately, there are always religious hypocrites (and small extremist groups), and some abound more in some communities and neighborhoods. That's no reason to judge the whole or the majority. Cheers, HKT 21:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I continued on the relevant talk page. Cheers, HKT 11:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Chapin School: New Jersey vs. Princeton[edit]

I have nothing, per se, against using Princeton as a qualifier, but the article already existed as Chapin School (New Jersey), having been created several weeks ago. So it made sense to redirect from the new, almost empty page to the older page with more content. Alansohn 02:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


ThuranX, the editing was an odd mix of intentionally breaking links and additions of information and misinformation. Can you state that intentional breakage of links is anything more than an act of vandalism? My statement was 'vandlism-like', giving a nod to this very very odd mixture. Let me specify what is vandalism-like and you can tell me if you believe these are well intentioned edits:

  • {{TOCleft}} → {{TO Cleft}}
  • {{wikibooks}} → {{wiki books}}
  • "son of Witta, Witta of Wecta, Wecta of Woden" → "son of Wicca, Witta of Wecta, Wecta of Women"
  • Genographic ProjectGeogra Project
  • [[timeline]]s of persons' lives → [[timelines of persons' lives

These are from this diff view. There is little space in an edit summary to specify these types of details, and their nature and number suggested that other reasonable editors would have conducted a redaction as I did (in my opinion). User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

in response to your comment on my talk page - what are you talking about? One strategy of a vandal is to mix good and bad edits or to innocuously label a bad edit as a good one. I assume good faith except where it is clear that bad faith has been committed, and deliberate breaking of links and addition of misinformation mixed with some good information fits the description of contribution in bad faith. "Good information" in the present case does not mean information I myself would have added, as the additions really did not contribute to the article, but just because I did not agree with content does not give me the right to revert. I reverted because of the intentional damage done ... I've added more instances from the diff that illustrate vandalous behavior. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


I found this article via the following Google search: -talk: -user: -wiki/Wikipedia: "it's origin". I'm just looking for typos and fixing them, by the way. I'm not specially interested in that article. Have a nice Saturday. --Dogaroon 02:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: edits to Changes/Infinite Crisis[edit]

I understand how my comments may have upset you. I won't deny a change of organization I didn't understand in an article I tend to observe a lot annoyed me, but while I may have failed to assume good faith as I should have, remember you mentioned yourself how Character Changes used to be a page riddled by mess. Sometimes people trying to be helpful tend to ignore some of the conventions we have all reached in the talk people. This not only happens when, say, someone erases a character who returns One Year Later. It also happens when people make changes not implemented anywhere else in the article. While I guess I'll swallow my pride, apologize, and admit that had I just restrained myself and use a word like "change" rather than "screw" to refer to that contributor's edit I could have avoided sounding like a complete asshole, I hope you can understand what I was thinking then, and that like that previous editor, I was also only trying to do what I thought was right for the article. --Ace ETP 21:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


The subject of the article itself is such a dick that it alsmost does not matter what is written on him in wikipedia. As for the territoerialism on the article - this is very evident and against wikipedia policy. keep watching this article. Zeq 06:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

e-mail me please.

get some e-mail address. enable your own wikipedia e-mail using this address and use the toolbox on the left: e-mail this user.

please add this article to your watch list[edit]

Don't set your bot to edit other people's talk page comments. that's rude, and probably violates half a dozen Wikipedia ethical policies and rules.ThuranX 06:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it's rude, and it doesn't violate any policies or rules. I'm bypassing redirects so you don't get useless redlinks when they get deleted, it's not hurting anything. --Rory096 06:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The redirect is being deleted. That means while you linked to a redirect before, soon it will just be a redlink. I'm not changing your thoughts on anything, I'm just bypassing a soon-to-be-deleted redirect to link to the same place it would have gone before without even changing the visible text! Are you going to yell at Jahiegel now for moving your comment from my userpage to the talk page? I doubt it, because he didn't change anything. Neither have I. --Rory096 03:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


But "pro-life" is the standard term. anti-abortion re-directs to pro-life. Both Pro-life and pro-choice are power words because they frame the debate in their own terms. People who support abortion are not necessarily anti-life nor are those who oppose necessarily abortion anti-choice. While "anti-abortion" is quite frequently the term the AP uses, it is more appropriate to use the term each side chooses for itself. Furthermore, that is WP's policy. 23:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Impostor down but not out[edit]

User:Shimgray blocked the User:Georgewiliamherbert account as an impostor of me. In case it isn't obvious, I have no idea who the bozo is, and I encourage you to keep vandal-fighting. Hope they go away soon and stop bothering all of us. Georgewilliamherbert 02:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw that they were back again. Other than noting the new IP address in the case history there's not a lot to do; they keep changing IP addresses, and aren't doing it so often that semi-protecting our user pages is really necessary, though that would work. I think just remaining vigilant is about it for now.
Attracting persistent twits is an occupational hazard of online activities. Georgewilliamherbert 06:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course, we all know ThuranX is a vandal too, and guilty of personal attacks, and incivility, and is guilty of using sockpuppets, but of course everyone pretends that's not true. For some reason ThuranX can get away with it. 22:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
When evidence is produced, it will be looked into. However, vandalizing his user page does not exactly give credit to your argument. — SheeEttin {T/C} 22:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


He's at it again, this time with Category:Celebrity Whovians. Most of the articles he's editing don't have any kind of reference to the Doctor at all. Mind taking a look at the effected articles and helping revert his unsupported edits? CovenantD 06:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)