Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:15, 6 August 2006

Welcome!

THIS IS MY USER TALK. IF YOU VANDALIZE I, I WILL REVERT THE VANDALISM. AS MANY TIMES AS IT TAKES. HITTING MY TALK WITH 'CEASE AND DESIST' VANDALISM WARNINGS FOR UNDOING YOUR BAD INFO, OR YOUR OWN VANDALISM, WILL ALSO BE REVERTED.

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)

Bossong

I found this article via the following Google search: site:en.wikipedia.org -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

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)

understood.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/Israeli_apartheid

Don't set your bot to edit other people's talk page comments. that's rude, and probably violates half a dozen Misplaced Pages 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)

Perhaps

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.66.82.9.79 23:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

COTW Project

You voted for Furniture, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. Davodd 02:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Impostor down but not out

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. 70.53.108.109 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)

Daffy

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)

Untitled Batman Begins Sequel

Thanks for the note of confidence about keeping the Untitled Batman Begins Sequel article clear of uncited edits. I was wondering what you did to revert that was different from the change I made? I'm still venturing into Misplaced Pages-editing land. Erik 22:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's my pleasure to keep things in shape. I was bothered by the "rumor mill" feeling of the film article. Obviously, Misplaced Pages is supposed to be well-informed (and cited), but it shouldn't be a source of breaking news without serious validation. Batman-on-Film has seriously struck me as a ridiculous source of information -- I'm not even sure if it should be an external link. I'll do my best to keep unnecessary changes out of the article. --Erik 02:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Batman Template

Thanks. I'm just doing what I can.

I made some more edits. Hope it might be a bit more compact now. Lenin & McCarthy 09:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You think it's ready yet?--Lenin & McCarthy 15:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll start with the films--Lenin & McCarthy 15:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your message on my User Talk, my edit to {{The Batman}} was neither an experiment nor vandalism (as I believe you described it in your reversion). Rather it was responsive to the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Comics discussion regarding the unweildy size of the box. I appreciate that you do not agree with my edit, however please refer to the Misplaced Pages guideline for assuming good faith in the future.

I have not reverted your edit at the moment pending further input on the WP:Comics discussion page I've linked, but I suggest you discuss the box there to help bring editorial consensus to the issue -Markeer 15:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The Dark Knight

I need some assistance in moving the "Untitled Batman Begins sequel" article and history to "The Dark Knight", which is the new film title, according to the ComingSoon.net article. I created The Dark Knight article before I tried to move the article over, but Misplaced Pages won't let me move the article, due to the creation of The Dark Knight. How do I fix this or request an admin to fix this? --Erik 02:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

From the article: "The announcements were made today by Jeff Robinov, President of Production, Warner Bros. Pictures." I've requested a move from The Dark Night to The Dark Knight; the problem is The Dark Knight article was created (before I even tried) as a redirect to The Dark Knight Returns. Hopefully, the change will be implemented soon. I've retained the rumored names for the Joker for historical sake as well. --Erik 03:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

{{The Batman}}

I would appreciate it if you would stop reverting good-faith edits as vandalism, which they are not. It is uncivil. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding civility, I'm going to ask you here (rather than on the subject talk page) to please edit or remove your comment on Template talk:The Batman: "Your actions are vandalism. Claiming consensus based on a third party talk page isn't acceptable, and isn't good faith. Reverting after being asked to this talk page is even worse. Don't waste time acting like a victim"

• My edit was not vandalism.
• I at no time claimed any consensus, only stated that I wished to reach a consensus (please read my specific language above suggesting discussion to 'help bring editorial consensus').
• Wikiproject Comics talk page is not a third party talk page, it is a wikipedia talk page created by editors interested in comics It is indeed intended with good faith in mind as wikipedia works best with many editors. However, I grant you that discussion on the article's talk page is always best which is why I moved my comments there.
• I made no reversion after being "asked to that talk page", or any reversion at all. I made one edit this morning to the page, and based on your objections I have attempted to only discuss this since then. Please refer to the time stamps.
• Regarding acting like a victim, please avoid personal attacks even if you disagree with me or my tone. I assure you I have given my best effort to using a polite tone in discussion with you as it is both of our intention for this userbox to be the best it possibly can be. -Markeer 16:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

ThuranX, please try not to assume bad faith. The tone of your recent comments about the {{Batman}} and {{Superman}} templates is needlessly confrontational, defensive and/or sarcastic. Take a look at WP:COOL and realize that the edits aren't about you: everyone is working towards the same goal, to make the templates as useful and aesthetically pleasing as they can be. We're not all going to agree completely on the results, but if we treat each other with civility and work towards consensus I hope we can come up with a result that's satisfactory to everybody.

You are not forbidden from working on the template, as your user page currently says. If members of the comics WikiProject are failing to listen to your arguments, it is because their defensive and sarcastic tone drowns out their content. Try restating your arguments in a calm, reasoned manner rather than focussing on who reverted whom and other personality issues. Make it about the template, not the personalities.

And, for the record, I'm not a member of the comics WikiProject. I'm just a fellow editor who happened to have Batman on my watchlist, and noticed the changes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)