| Revision as of 22:02, 15 May 2006 editCeyockey (talk | contribs)Administrators83,213 editsm →Genealogy: minor edit addition← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:51, 16 May 2006 edit undoCeyockey (talk | contribs)Administrators83,213 edits →Genealogy: response to comment on my talk pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| * <nowiki>{{wikibooks}}</nowiki> → <nowiki>{{wiki books}}</nowiki> | * <nowiki>{{wikibooks}}</nowiki> → <nowiki>{{wiki books}}</nowiki> | ||
| * "son of Witta, Witta of Wecta, Wecta of Woden" → "son of Wicca, Witta of Wecta, Wecta of Women" | * "son of Witta, Witta of Wecta, Wecta of Woden" → "son of Wicca, Witta of Wecta, Wecta of Women" | ||
| * → | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| * <nowiki>]s of persons' lives</nowiki> → <nowiki>[[timelines of persons' lives</nowiki> | |||
| ⚫ | These are from . 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 (<small>'']''</small>) 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 (<small>'']''</small>) 12:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:51, 16 May 2006
Welcome!
Hello, ThuranX, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Dr Debug (Talk) 23:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Roubo
Hi, I started an article on André Jacob Roubo, who you quite rightly added to the Misplaced Pages: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)
Hello
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
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)
Genealogy
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 Project → Geogra Project
- ]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)