This user may have left Wikipedia. ThuranX has not edited Wikipedia since November 2014. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome!

THIS IS MY USER TALK. IF YOU VANDALIZE IT, 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.

NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM.

Hello, ThuranX, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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 Wikipedia
• 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 Wikipedia: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) [reply]

Archives

User talk:ThuranX/Archive 1 User talk:ThuranX/Archive 2 User talk:ThuranX/Archive 3 User talk:ThuranX/Archive 4 User talk:ThuranX/Archive 5 User talk:ThuranX/Archive 6 User talk:ThuranX/Archive 7 User talk:ThuranX/Archive 8 User talk:ThuranX/Archive 9 User talk:ThuranX/Special archive 1

You might like to know that I have reported 3 users (Lontech, Sulmues, Spanishboy2006) who are violating Wikipedia consensus on Kosovo to the ArbCom probation enforcement page. Feel free to leave any comments, if you'd like. All the best, --Cinéma C 02:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Would you mind reconsidering your !vote now the article has been expanded significantly? I would like to take it to DYK but I cannot do so before the AFD is not settled so I'd like to ask you whether you'd object if the nominator withdrew the AFD request. Regards SoWhy 09:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is moderatley (in light of the fact that the budget was less for the first film and it has performed well in dvd sales, now 306 million gross) weaselly? i dont think so. Factual and understated, even ecyclopedically restrained. rather than describing a a 61 and 54 RT and MC scores as mixed for the first hulk and 61 and 66 scores as generally positive, i would say that is weaselly. going off topic a bit the reason everyone thought the first hulk was a flop was mainly because avi arad and ang lee and the studio did not see eye to eye, and marvel especially in regards to profits which is why they now develop in house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.251.6 (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I reverted this edit while watching RC's. I know nothing of the subject but noted you had reverted the same IP executing the same edit and trusted your judgement. If you could give me some pointers on what to look for it would help me stay out of trouble on my reverts. If the page has enough eyes on it, just let me know and I'll stay out of the way. Regards Tiderolls 05:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can read it or ignore it as you choose. I'm just letting you know there is a response. -- Moss&Fern (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ThuranX, I replied to your comment but wanted to leave a personal message. I think some of your comments have become uncivil and border on personal attacks (at least I felt they were to me). It would be better if we could discuss the content as it relates to the relevant policies. I expect you believe we should follow Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise and WP:WEIGHT. Our discussion on that article would be more helpful if we focused on the content and how best to apply Wikipedia standards. I only started reviewing the article myself a couple weeks ago, so I'm not some long time editor protecting it. I would apply the same standards to any biography I get involved with. I do take the view that this is an encyclopedia and not a web profile listing news, meaning that a biography should reflect what you would expect to see in an encyclopedic biography of a notable person. This is also the view of Wikipedia. This may also reflect your view, and perhaps we just need to work out the degree based on wiki policies. In any case, I hope that you'll consider a more constructive approach as we do need good editors to improve the article. Morphh ^(talk) 13:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also add that in truth, I can live with the quote as written, but do have concerns as I noted. I would just like someone to discuss those concerns. If I lay out a logical and policy driven reason why something is a concern, I would hope editors working for inclusion would layout a counter logical and policy driven argument for inclusion. Instead I get attacked. How are editors suppose to respond to that? It then becomes aggressive as an editor defends a policy driven argument against an emotional one, when in reality, it doesn't matter much if the content is included or not. Like that quote, I don't care if it's in there, but I would like some rational, logic, and policy to drive it (as there arguments for not including it). I can get behind a logical discussion and lend support, but I can't get behind an emotional one. Hope this helps to explain some of my edits and will increase our productive collaboration. Morphh ^(talk) 14:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I've been protecting Bytebear. I disagree with him, but I think he's made some valid arguments that require discussion, not dismissal. I agree there is consensus on including content - I'm part of that consensus, but I'm not sure what that means as far as content as most people just come in and complain. Bytebear is at least explaining his position and presenting an argument. I'm not interested in making Beck look like a saint either, but "balance" is something defined in policy, not some measure of 50/50 saint / devil. Biographies have a much higher threshhold for including criticism and praise. I know people are upset, but that's not reason to disregard our job as civil editors that respect the policies of the encyclopedia. I sort of feel like we have a few people trying to have a constructive discussion of entries in the mists of an angry mob with pitch forks. Bytebear may be unconvinced, but there are several others that also have similar concerns. We should work to address them, not dismiss it with the angry mob. Morphh ^(talk) 14:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the statement the president has repeatedly exposed himself as having a deep-seated hatred... is referring to Beck's belief regarding Obama's agenda for reparations and social justice for blacks. That was the discussion for that entire week on Beck's show. If you look at the entire quote, it becomes more clear that he was talking about institutional racism, which is why I think the context is needed. There are different definitions for racism, and I don't think Beck implied that Obama thinks blacks are superior to whites. So that's what I was getting at... hope this clarifies it. Morphh ^(talk) 17:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that point. I had it originally worded differently that I think expressed your point but it was trimmed down. In late July 2009, Beck argued that reparations and social justice were driving President Obama's agenda, discussing issues of diversity and institutional racism.^[1] That week in response to the Henry Gates controversy, Beck stated that Obama has repeatedly exposed himself as having... Still may be considered SYN, would have to look at the sources. I'll think of how we might be able to clarify using one of these other terms based on what we have in the direct sources. I'm fine with removing the reparations from this section and moving it to the politics. Morphh ^(talk) 18:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the forum check, should have just kept my mouth shut. :-) Morphh ^(talk) 15:52, 01 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text ((unblock|your reason here)) below. talk

I see four reverts in less than 24 hours. [1] [2] [3] [4]. You are well aware that you were doing this as you warned another editor for it, and you have been here long enough to know this is not acceptable. I see and understand your concerns about the Beck article, but you are not making things easier with your behavior over there. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, punish those who work with others, those who follow the system, and reward the POV pushers. The Civil POV Push wins again. Good Job. Genius. ThuranX (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to request an unblock, though I'm guessing that's not your style. You obviously didn't "follow the system" in that you broached 3RR. That was not necessary. And this is not about civility at all, though you really do need to tone it down on the article talkpage. I get your complaint about what's going on over at Glenn Beck Thuran—I really do. I'm going to see if something broader can be down about the problems over there. When you edit war and throw bombs on the article talk page though, you cloud the core issues and make it harder to do something about them. It gives me no pleasure to block you or anyone else, but I can't very well block Bytebear for (far more egregious) edit warring and then simply ignore the fact that you were doing the same thing and yourself broached the 3RR "bright line." You're welcome to think this a terrible block and demean my capabilities as an admin, but I would request that you try to see things a bit from my perspective as someone trying to be impartial in dealing with edit warring. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. That page has a large handful of editors arguing the points of making a good article up against two or three people only interested in protecting Beck's article from the reality of Glenn Beck himself. That sooner or later some of those editors would wind up in dangerous territory is a result of their excessive efforts to AGF and try to work with such obvious trolls. You'll note that there are admins already involved there, (Will Beback), and others (Oronem) Who warned Bytebear when he was past 3RR, but didn't block him for it. To then decide to block me and warn Paglew shows your inability to actually read through the large amount of evidence I provided, instead relying on the idea that since I've got a block log already, you can point at it and say 'he must be guilty', and hope you'll get away with it, and point to blocks of people from both sides as proof that you surely must have been neutral in assessing this situation. I haven't 'thrown bombs' at all there, and believe me, I could. The dossier posted about Bytebear's POV conflicts and CoI was removed, and I didn't even once restore it, though it would've done a great deal for my case that he's an intractably concreted user. But you'll keep insisting that we humor him and be kind to him and AGF till our cocks fall off, because you cannot recognize a 'Civil POV Push' when you see it. Raul654 wrote a lengthy essay on the matter, you would do well to read it. ThuranX (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your brazilian nemesis left a message for you on there.200.255.166.196 (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ThuranX. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Soxwon (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments such as you made here are unacceptable. Do NOT repeat such transgressions. — Ched :  ?  05:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Learn what NPA is, and go read that talk page. He's spent days on end objecting to any and ever source, nitpicking against any number of editors. You can redact this bogus warning any time. ThuranX (talk) 06:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A thread has been started on WP:AN/I that you may be interested in, you can find the discussion here. Soxwon (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For giving me a red link... Soxwon (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome!

It's been fixed. Dunno why it looked right, then posted wrong. I think the colons and if statement are some fancy behind the scenes stuff that get completely borked by a diff link in that field of the preset warning system. ThuranX (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was meant as a general "D'oh"/facepalm comment at my not spotting it sooner, rather than an insult. No offense or insult meant. My apologies Soxwon (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make a great physical effort at AGF, and return to a 'none taken'. In the future, when you're opening multiple complaints against editors, try to avoid calling them dumb. ThuranX (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can try to find instances where I've done the same thing, it's not really an insult to you but a general "wow, I can't believe I missed that" moment. Soxwon (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For cleaning up my talkpage :) Soxwon (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you comment, though... looking into the birth date of Vincent Van Gogh and the one of Howard Pyle, you must agree that this is not a contemporary (!) comment, maybe should ask some professional assistance on this subject. That is, if you do not mind. Ida Shaw (talk) 08:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are being very unfair here. Why did you put (Caution: Page blanking, removal of content on Howard Pyle. (TW)) (top) when this is not correct ? We both know this was not the case. The rest, I leave it to other people to check. Ida Shaw (talk) 12:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem not to understand: Time will tell..., and I consider this discussion as closed. Ida Shaw (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've started a consensus discussion on the edit conflict on Red Hulk here. Can you offer your opinion on the four points there? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You said the identity info should be in chrono-order. But what are your thoughts on whether it should be broken up or mentioned together? Nightscream (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, usually people who just sign up on Wikipedia have to learn things about lingo and syntax. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show me one thing he said that was either constructive or that even addressed the article rather than those editing it, and I'll gladly revert. Soxwon (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll also notice significant time gaps, I noticed one edit and reverted, then had to run. I didn't have time, sorryCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).. Soxwon (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's so, how come you allowed Joker's appearance to stay? Rtkat3 (talk) 5:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This might be of interest, and goes to disproving a certain claim. On the 2nd January, 2009, we see you congratulating me on my editing of the article Abomination : [5] Note that references are out of the article and in footnote form. Then, note this: [6] where I trialed a style that includes references in the article, and you support it. Note the entry - 22nd January, 2009. It is NOT June 2009, as I originally said.

Also, please remember that at all times, even when in disagreement, we must civil. Asgardian (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the source of the information in that article appears to be in the public domain, and I've restored it per the author's request. See User talk:Jclemens#Copyright before 1964 for the discussion. Informing you as the G12 tagger. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ThuranX. I reviewed the copyright report on James Pieronnet Pierce and added a comment to the talk page. The status is that the book from which the text was copy-pasted, History of Santa Clara County California (1922), is in the public domain. The contributor added a proper summary note in the article history and a template at the bottom of the article to provide attribution. That is all the requirements needed per WP guidelines which say In addition to the edit summary note, be sure to attribute the material either by using blockquotes, or quotation marks, by using an attribution template, using an inline citation and/or adding your own note in the reference section of the article to indicate that language has been used verbatim.. So there is no copyright violation. However, just because it is public domain doesn't mean the text is appropriate. There is definitely some POV commentary that needs to be removed or revised. (I won't make any judgment about notability -- I'll leave that up to you.) Thanks for checking on the possible CV problem. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the revelations in the most recent two issues of Ex Machina, would you consider it reasonable to conclude that the gardener really did gain powers by eating crops which had been fertilized with Mitchell Hundred's blood? DS (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you aren't going to put what he said in the correct context, then you should remove the entire thing. Period. Joshua Ingram 00:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A relentless, pro-Orthodox user has materialized at Who is a Jew? and I can't keep up. I immediately thought of you... Best, A Sniper (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you previously discussed Rjanag's conduct at the underlying referenced Simon Dodd AN/I.

The RfC can be found here.

Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:

(a) posting their own view; and/or

(b) endorsing one or more views of others.

You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.

Information on the RfC process can be found at:

1. RfC Conduct
2. RfC Guide
3. RfC Guide 2
4. RfC Rules

Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just leting you know that kosovo and israel have perfect cooperation Israel recognize kosovo passports will tell you 1 fact that ordinary people dont know regarding kosovo recognized by israel.The only reason why israel dont recognize kosovo is muslim world.If israel would recognize kosovo then the recognitions from muslim world would stop.

there are a lot of israeli counselors in Kosovo’s Prime Minister Cabinet one of them is David Klein, Israeli counselor for economy of Kosovo’s Prime Minister Hashim Thaci.

also check this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania%E2%80%93Israel_relations

Precisely, only one Jewish family was deported and killed during the Nazi occupation of Albania.[5] Not only did the Albanians protect their own Jews, but they provided refuge for Jews from neighboring countries.[6] The Albanians refused to comply and hand over lists of Jews. Instead they provided the Jewish families with forged documents and helped them disperse in the Albanian population.[7] Some 1,200 Jewish residents and refugees from other Balkan countries were hidden by Albanian families during World War II, according to official records.[8]

Israel has been one of the richest countries to receive Kosovar Albanians refugees from Kosovo War in 1999.[9] Many refugees were provided medical care, food and accommodation by the Israeli authorities,[10] as a gesture of thanks to the Albanian people after their contribution to the saving of Jews in the Holocaust period.

i've added this cause i saw you have wrong percipience about Kosovo.-- LONTECH  Talk  03:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

since most of the users coming from countries that dont recognize kosovo those users dont like kosovo as independent state here on wiki also

i was refereeing to your last action of removing(revert) of KOSOVO Flag and COA on top (support for users who dont like flag on top ex.serbs)

There is Consensus about this to put FLAG and COA on top just check the archive.-- LONTECH  Talk  21:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ThuranX. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 19:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It is clear that you have a strongly negative emotional response to what you perceive is a cabal of Orthodoxy. I am uncertain as to the source of your reaction, but I respectfully request that you review and read all of the comments on Talk:Who is a Jew? carefully, and as dispassionately as you are able. I believe you will see that I am basing my stance on logic, not some superiority complex. I will say that when you respond to what I believe are respectful and logical statements with obscenity, dismissiveness, and condescension, it makes it difficult to follow the wiki process. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 06:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading it for years. Don't talk down to me like you think is so 'respectful'. I know when I see the 'Orthodox is right' meme being promoted and whitewashed. I don't like it, and I won't stand for it on the page. ThuranX (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will reiterate that I think you are not responding logically but emotionally, and that is causing you to see memes where there are none. What we have there is a discussion about the best existing scholarship for practice circa 1000 BCE. You seem to think that 19th century scholars are better sources than 10th century or 3rd century sources, and you feel that way why? -- Avi (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate. Get good sources. Rabbis promoting the beliefs of a religion are biased primary sources. Get secondary sources, like this project requires. ThuranX (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can you please vote again on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uwe_Kils_(3rd_nomination). Best wishes Uwe Kils 15:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not too late to help at all - being busy has kept the work on it to a crawl.  ;) I'd like to represent what you are referring to; was it on the Abom talk page or somewhere else? BOZ (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I was wondering if you would help me finish up the RFC/U regarding User:Asgardian. I'm going to put the RFC into place before the end of the year, so it would really be great if you could provide any help you are able to give. What I need most are diffs displaying the disputed behavior. I have some already here, but could use some more. I mean just a list of diffs to put in the first five or so categories I listed there, as I already have more than enough illustrative examples. Anything that you think is edit warring (mutiple similar edits to the same article in the span of a few days), incivility, inaccurate edit summaries, or other similar behavioral problems. List them on the RFCU talk page - just the diffs is all I need, because I want people reading the RFC to be able to draw their own conclusions.

Also, I have come up with a desired outcome and a description of the case based on the comments that have been gathered, and I would appreciate any responses to that on the talk page.

Thanks! BOZ (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I'm just letting you know that the Asgardian RFC/U has begun.

Also, you made statements pertaining to the case, and I tried to reflect all the major points in my summary. If you feel there is something you wanted to be said that I did not cover sufficiently (or accurately enough to reflect your viewpoint), you may post an "Involved user view" below Asgardian's response section to elaborate. You may wish to copy, whole or in part, any previous statements you have made (with or without diffs or links) into such a new section as you desire.

Thank you for your participation. BOZ (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for weighing in there. All the best, Doczilla _STOMP! 08:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ThuranX, just to let you know there is a discussion ongoing here. Do you care to weigh in with an opinion? Bus stop (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added back to the Genealogy article valuable resouces for our readers. As a former employee of a major genealogical library (the Newberry), I know firsthand the frustrations of people who are unfamiliar with books or articles that would solve many of their problems. This is especially important for dealing with genealogical resources in other countries. The titles furthermore demonstrate the wide range of genealogy today, especially as it links to social science. Rjensen (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Thuran X, I do agree that self identification matters greatly in this section. My problem is that the claim has no source cited and I do not feel that saying citation needed makes up for the fact that there is no source. If someone can cite a source, I would have no objection to the line "they consider themselves jewish by patrilineal descent." Rawleary (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. As you put a significant amount of work into Captain Marvel (DC Comics), I'm letting you know that the article has been put up for Featured article review. BOZ (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• re the alleged gag order, please see the talk page for the article - i researched it, and there's no proof of it existing. and i think o'keefe is a total douche, but let's keep the article accurate.--Milowent (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has been started about your actions on Rich Dad Poor Dad on the biographies of living persons noticeboard, here. Best regards, Yworo (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop accusing people, calling it a smokescreen.

Worse yet, when there is a non-controversial prose improvement, as was most of the edit, do NOT make it bad again. This is being bad!

I removed your bad reverts but stuck the word professor in to satisfy you. JB50000 (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one continuously ignoring consensus and insisting there's a conspiracy to call him a professor, when the university itself flat out says he was a professor. This is your agenda pushing, and it will be reverted. If you want to retain the OTHER paragraphs, which, frankly, are better written as they are, not as you want them to be, do it WITHOUT altering the first paragraph. It's pretty simple, there's a consensus against you, long has been, the evidence is against you, the citation is against you... clue in. ThuranX (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is actually against you. Somehow you are on a mad agenda to confuse the public. Actually, Senior Lecturer shows Obama is smart and worked his way up politically. If he were to become Professor of Law or Associate Professor of Law, he'd still be in Chicago giving lectures.

You are rude first and that makes everyone upset. So please stop doing it. Anyway, you win because I am getting out of this cesspool at least for a day or two. JB50000 (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for participating in the recent RFC/U regarding Asgardian‎. The RFC has been closed, and the case is now at arbitration. You are neither required nor requested to participate, but you may view the initial statements for the case (please do not edit that page), and you may view the evidence presented and add more evidence if you wish, or simply follow the case. BOZ (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested another user's comment may indicate anti-Semitism, and am now being accused of libel for it. I often respect your way of handling conflicts, and wonder if you'd provide an independent view here but also go to talk: Christ myth theory and just use your "find" function for "holocaust" and see how often it comes up, and how. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your looking at it, but you needn't bothe at this point. What really upsets me is, anyone who raises questions about Jesus is being compared to a Holocaust denier. I think it is just mortifying, using the Holocaust as a weapon. I don't want to get into an argument aabout whether Jesus existed or not, I just do not want anyon to think that it is appropriate to ring up the Holocaust as if that were a constructive part of the discussion. Yet one user at the Christ Myth Theory does this all the time.

But I understand your weariness with conflict, don't worry about it. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TX. You might want to look in on Iron Man 2 and Blacklash (comics). As happened with Iron Man, where the term Iron Monger was never used for Obadiah Stane, there's much rv'ing going on at those two pages re: the terms Whiplash, War Machine and Black Widow, which are never used in the film. I don't know if an RfC may be needed, or just some experienced editors to go in and take a look. I'm involved, and if I'm off base, let me know. I'm going with the examples from Iron Man (film), where War Monger was not used, and [[The Incredible Hulk (film), where the Leader was not used and, as per this archived consensus, Abomination was not to be used. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's always good to see you when you do! There's nothing like the old gang!--Tenebrae (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a new candidate for the main infobox image I've decided to present, and I'd appreciate your thoughts at Talk:Flash (Barry Allen)#Infobox image 2010. Thanks! --CmdrClow (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite your edits has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, as someone that helped re-write and maintain the Dethklok article, would you be interested in keeping an eye on the indivual band member articles:

Pickles (Metalocalypse)‎;

William Murderface‎;

Skwisgaar Skwigelf‎;

Toki Wartooth;

Nathan Explosion‎;

We discussed this issue last summer on Talk:Dethklok#Character Bios and probably some other places too. Thanks. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  20:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ban of Sugar Bear/Ibaranoff24. Thank you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, T. Just want to say it's always great to see another editor turning passive voice to active voice. Such a simple thing, and yet it makes articles so much more precise and sharply written. Nice editing! Regards as always, --Tenebrae (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've started a consensus discussion here, and would appreciate your input. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since that discussion seems to have ended a while ago, I just thought I'd let you know that I'm going to leave that photo alone, due to my previous conflict with Brandon, and the accusation of COI on my part by him. So if you or someone else wants the photo switched, I'd prefer if someone else do it. Nightscream (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say that I wrote that on Hulk talk page ONLY because Hulk WASN'T included in Marvel Superhero's Category, unlike that bunch of villains. This has nothing to do with what you decided he is in his article. Thanks.200.191.155.118 (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, I understand. ThuranX (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A conflict with Josh Adams that is similar to the one we had with Ivan Brandon arose on Adams' article. You can see the details in that article's History, and on the talk page of the account used by the editor indicating himself to be Adams. The photo he insisted upon was way too dark and colorless, so I asked him if he could upload a better-lit version, and he did. Though I think his lips are a bit too red, I think it's a far better version, even though his rationale for changing the photo seems to flirt with WP:COI. I just thought I'd let you know in the interest of transparency. Nightscream (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried looking through policies relevant to this, such as WP:AUTOBIO, and at WP:AUTOBIO#Problems in an article about you, it says, "If you do not like the photo, you can help Wikipedia by contributing a good photo under a suitable free content license. If you have a promotional photo you are willing and able to release under such a license, that's ideal for us and you." When I read that, I thought that the modified version of Adams' photo was adequate. Or should he have to go through OTRS before we can use it? Nightscream (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year. So what is your feeling on the Ivan Brandon and Josh Adams photo matters? Should we leave the ones currently in the articles? Nightscream (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A disagreement has arisen over which of two photos would be better as the main Infobox image for the Ben Templesmith article. Can you participate in this discussion? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you voice your opinion on the Beth Sotelo deletion discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, T. Haven't seen you around the project for awhile. There's a potential fancruft issue at X-Men: The Last Stand over that endless Quill/Kid Omega thing again, and I thought you might want to keep an eye on it. Hope things are going well in real life. Regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your opinion on what would be the best photo for the Infobox in the Grant Morrison article is requested here. If you could take the time to participate, it would be greatly appreciated, but if you cannot, then disregard; you don't have to leave a note on my talk page either way. Nightscream (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have a question for which I need objective opinions. Can you offer your viewpoint here? I really need it in order to proceed. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Heroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Conversion to a task force is proposed and discussed in the talk page. Although I have no interest on the show, feel free. --George Ho (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't forgotten about our little game almost 6 years ago. I hope you are well. Mcflytrap (talk) 08:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior like this is why I don't edit here anymore.ThuranX (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the matter discussed at the bottom of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently, Hulk Vs, has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: Find sources: "Hulk Vs" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 13:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you removed the merge template from Who is a Jew you also removed 2 other things by mistake. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In case you didn't already know, Asgardian has been unblocked. Just thought you should know. Nightscream (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No surprise. Quality work is debased by crufters and trolls, who have more time to tear down than it takes good researchers and writers to build. ThuranX (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A case (Palestine-Israel articles) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ThuranX! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with ((ping|DerHexer)). Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 01:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]