Talk:T-X

T1000
"However, the T-1000 is a stronger model. Although TX surfaced many upgrades, the 1000's polly-alloy continious reformation is what makes a superior model to the TX. TX was made soley for terminating rogue T-400-600 models." I removed this part. It's just fan-wanking to the T-1000. They've already stated that the T-X is superior to all models that came before her. And she's a Terminator of Terminators. 24.14.120.92

"Although not specifically stated, it can be presumed that it has the same files regarding human psychology as the T-850 -just as the T-800 protecting and T-1000 sent after John Connor in the 90s had the same files- further aiding its infiltration abilities when called on."

I thought it was stated quite clearly that the 850 had better pyschology files that the 800? Bihal 04:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Though it was stated by the 850 that it did have files on basic psychology, it was never stated whether this was a new thing or that earlier models did not. That was not really the point anyway, just that like the previous terminators in T2, those in T3 (T-850 and T-X) also probably had the same files as each other.

This whole page is just a comparison of all the T-Series of humanoid robots. Shouldn't it just be about T-X or be a differernt page? Yincrash 13:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

T-X and T-1000
The T-X and T-1000 series are not cybernetic organisms (cyborgs). There is no living tissue in their bodies - therefore technically they are not cybernetic organisms. Their skin is made from a polyalloy. Both are capable of shapeshifting unlike the older series Terminators, so I would disagree in calling them cybernetic organisms. See Wiktionary dictionary definition of cyborg. "The term cyborg, a portmanteau of cybernetic organism, is used to designate a creature which is a mixture of organic and mechanical parts. Generally, the aim is to add to or enhance the abilities of an organism by using technology". Unless contrary proof is offered, I shall intend to reverse that particular edit. Iam 01:08, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the use of cyborg must also be at least somewhat correct for the T-X and T-1000. The first Terminator film established very clearly that only a living organism can travel through the temporal displacement field. This implies that both models must clone at least a thin layer of human tissue over top of the polyalloy in order to travel through time. This also explains why the T-X and T-1000 must be as naked as a T-800 or human when going through.


 * Since only organic matter can time travel, this raises an interesting question: are the T-X or T-1000 cyborgs (and by this I interpret 'cybernetic organism' loosely as organic-synthetic hybrids), or 'mimetic' androids/gynoids? Perhaps they are hybrids on a purely cellular or molecular level (thereby enabling their time travel), like Borg nanoprobes?  I think the T-8x0 is definitely a cyborg, since he is quoted as such and has a physical layer of flesh that is important to his function (infiltration).  Could they all be something else?  Thoughts?  E Pluribus Anthony 05:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

it was my understanding that only human flesh OR MIMETIC POLLYALLOY IMITATING HUMAN FLESH can survive the time travel81.108.233.59 (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

gynoid or android?
If I recall the movie correctly, the T-X was not strictly a gynoid. The primary disguise that it used was the female with whom it first came into contact by pure chance, but it could change appearance at will. Just like how the T-1000 spent most of its time disguised as the police officer it first touched, but had no especial connection to that appearance. --209.108.217.226 01:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

While I tend to agree on the gynoid/android thing, we should get our facts straight. As far as the T-X is concerned we don't know whether or not the appearance we saw was based on some human she encountered, or if Skynet programmed a default. I tend to suspect the latter, however, given her tendency to revert to the same form. As for the T-1000, if you watch Terminator 2 closely, it only mimics the uniform of the police officer. The cop himself actually looks quite different.

Well if you paid attention... the T-X only copied the clothes and hairstyle of the female she killed. 24.14.120.92 02:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: gynoid or android?
Well, no; you are not recalling correctly. When they came in those time-travelling things, they were already sexed. They came naked, like everyone else that came from the future, so they had to steal their clothes from others, but they had human appearance from the beginning. They were built looking like humans. I have seen that movie like a thousand times, and I swear, the T-x was a woman from the beginning and the T-1000 a man from the beginning. The terminatrix and the T-1000 are gynoid and android respectively. Amen. :D

Hey, why isn't this thing printing my name?? Do I have to put it myself?? Anyone...?

---hey! I discovered how to use the signature, but if I sign now everybody will think that I'm not the writer and that I'm only trying to take the credit for this wonderful entry :). So, I won't sign, BUT no one else may. If anybody signs this entry it means he/she is just trying to get the credit for it. Only the Wikipedia people know who truly wrote this... well, and me, of course. That's all I've got to say, I love you is that ok...?---


 * Follow up your comments with --~ to get the auto-signature. :)
 * Maybe I am remembering the film incorrectly, but I thought that at the start of it she shows up, all metalic, in the backseat of a car being driven by a woman who looks just like Kristanna Loken, or something along those lines. On the other hand, I also seem to remember her walking around naked, so I'll have to give you the benefit of the doubt. Also, the metallic endoskeleton that shows up on the page now certainly has a female build, which also suggests that it was intended to be more of a gynoid. --209.108.217.226 02:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, now I've got it straightened out. I looked up the plot synopsis on themoviespoiler.com . She does indeed show up naked, then she steals the skintight outfit from a woman in a car, and increases her breast size based on looking at a billboard. I had those scenes all combined in my memory. --209.108.217.226 03:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

What I hear you say is "Yes, she was a female from the beginning"


 * The T-X is already built looking like a woman much like a T-800 is built looking like a heavily muscled Austrian. Also, underneath the T-X's skin-tissue is a skeleton with a female form, complete with widened hips and a protruding breast shape. Just because the T-X is capable of morphing parts of itself like a T-1000 doesn't mean it isn't actually more akin to a T-800. Mr.bonus 11:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The Clothes Issue
There seems to be a bit of confusion as far as the issue of clothes and polymimmetic terminators goes. T-X or T-1000, they only copy the clothes of a victim. They do not actually steal them. For a perfect example of this, we have the T-1000 copying the security guard in T2. He copies everything, appearance and clothes, before he kills him, and then dumps his fully clothed body in some utility closet.

Appearance changes
I heard that in one scene in T3, the T-X alters the size of her breasts. Is this really true? 'Cause if so, that is wrong.--69.137.128.16 00:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes she does and I dont consider anything wrong with that, in fact its a funny moment. -- [[Image:Wikipedia-logo.png|25px]]  RND   T    C   00:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

does this mean that we should remove the bit about it copying the apperance of anyone IT TOUCHES?81.108.233.59 (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the default form of the T-X is naked
This also applies to the T-800 and T-1000 though no mention of that was on this page or their pages. Without this information it could be misconstrued that the writers/designers are guilty of sexism. If what I've wrote on this isn't satisfactory, somebody else needs to write a similar thing across all 'T-series' pages. Just to re-iterate; mentioning it only on the female character's page seems like blatant sexism and people who don't know the films could think that the writers decided to 'send the T-X back naked' solely to get a bit of titillation in the movie at the expense of the actress, rather than realising that all 'T-series' are sent back in this state. Mr.bonus 11:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the above argument prooves the scene was cheap titillation in the form of B-grade porn. This renders the image of this scene inappropriate. Unless someone can come up with a real justification for keeping it, I'm removing the from the article. It's unnecessary. --a_gx7


 * No genuine body parts were ever shown, if I remember correctly. She appeared in a state that suggests nudity to conform with the series. Had she appeared clothed, it would have been done out of context with the rest of the series. She had to be nude to keep with the Terminator series plotlines. -- Ubergenius 14:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I know. I think you are a bit confused about what my point was - I was saying there was a problem with the way the Wikipedia article was relating this information, NOT that there is a problem with sexism in the film itself. Mr.bonus 17:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

behavior patterns
"The biggest weakness of the T-X is the same as that for all the Terminators sent by Skynet - a certain lack of creativity. The programming consistently drives them to pursue the target above all else. While this might seem a good thing, it often leads them to the mistake of moving on before finishing off a foe when it might be smarter to risk letting the target get farther away. (For example, the T-X is ultimately defeated by neglecting the T-850 in favor of chasing Connor and Brewster, allowing the T-850 to seize hold of the T-X and destroy it with the T-850's own hydrogen power cell.) This lack of effective decision making probably comes down to an aspect mentioned in the extended version of Terminator 2: when sent out on their own, Terminators have their CPUs set to read only, which effectively prohibits them from learning, adapting, and making any choices on their own."

The t-1000 thought it had killed the T-800 completely. And it did, but there was an alternate power source. I haven't actually seen terminator 3, so I cannot comment on whether the section is accurate regarding the T-X. And there is no "lack of creativity" displayed by the t-800 in the first one. I will rewrite the section so it refers only to the T-X.

Also, the t-800 learns in T2. Are their CPUs set to read only if they come from Skynet? In any case, it's arguable that the t-1000 does learn. The first time it fights with the t-800 in T2, it traps the 800 model's arm in a machine. When the t-800 returns, the t-1000 makes sure to kill it (obviously it did not expect the alternate power source). I will remove that part commpletely, since there is ambiguity there. Also, it's complete speculation; it's just as easy to argue that the TX pursues the target, not because of a "certain lack of creativity," but because its legs have been ripped off and it would be difficult to catch up after killing the t-800. Sophy&#39;s Duckling 04:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Original research
This article reads like a bunch of original research. I may be wrong, and there may be canon sources for all of the information in the article, but if that's the case then they need to be cited. Wikipedia cannot contain speculation, however logical; it needs to have happened or been directly stated in the movies, books, etc or it needs to be removed. TomTheHand 21:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

See T-800 talk for longer reasoning. Suffice to say, done. ColdFusion650 23:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Edited to match T-1000's page
I also added a picture. WyrmKing 08:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Some reverting
I reverted a few edits and wanted to explain why. First, the Manual of Style (headings) states "Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest lower case," so I've made section headings lower case. Second, some of the reversions are grammar-related or simply read better. Third, I've removed "With a range of 60 watts, this destructive burst of plasma has the raw energy of 100 pounds of TNT." I realize it's probably from some sort of official source, but a 60 watt power source would take over a month to put out as much energy as 100 pounds of TNT. It's technobabble nonsense, so I don't think it needs to be in the article. TomTheHand 16:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

And watts doesn't measure range anyway. "A range of 60 watts" means absolutely nothing. Watts is power, but range is distance. Like TomTheHand said, technobabble. ColdFusion650 16:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Guys, it was in the movie. "Plasma Cannon in the 60 watt range". And ColdFusion, I know watts measure power, I didn't say it meant distance. Range of power not range of distance. Is it weak or is it strong? Etc. Now as for a 60 watt power source taking over a month to put out that kind of power, well this is future technology, Skynet must have found some way around it. The T-X is afterall powered by a Plasma Reactor. And this is Terminator, with cyborg assassins from the future, metallic humanoid doing things like Clayface from the Batman comics. There's no such thing as Technobabble here. WyrmKing 23:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A watt is defined as a joule per second. An explosion of 100 pounds of TNT is almost 190 million joules.  190 million joules divided by sixty watts equals about 3.2 million seconds, or over a month.  "This is the future" doesn't get around it.  I don't care if it's in the movie, it's utter nonsense and so it's staying out of the article.  There's no need to put in every little sentence that's in the movie, especially when it's crap. TomTheHand 00:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We're assuming that "60-watt range" means 60 joules per second total output. I'm just speculating, but "60-watt" could mean 60-watts per cubic micrometer, or something of that nature. Thus a weapon with a diameter of one decimeter would have have π·r2·60 watts·1,000,000 ≈ 9,424,778 watts ≈ 9.5 megawatts, though TomTheHand pointed out that 100 pounds of TNT would have about 190 megawatts, so my units may be off, but my general idea seems rather interesting to me at least. AltiusBimm 08:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources/Possible OR
About the technical specifics that apparently need citations. Most of the facts contain in the article are verified by simply watching the movie. The only section I can't remember hearing or seeing in the movie is this:


 * This Terminator series has an advanced utilitarian battle chassis protected by malleable ceramic armor, interlaced with nano fibers of carbon and titanium. This unique build makes the T-X nearly invulnerable on the battlefield...

So I have added a cite source for that fact and then removed the tag for this section. Sophy&#39;s Duckling 00:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Legs destroyed, since when?
The T-X merely detatched its legs because they were trapped under the wreck caused by the helicopter, they weren't actually destroyed, someone needs to rewrite that part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.66.214 (talk • contribs) 00:38, July 16, 2007 (CDT)

Due to the camera angle, its hard to tell to what extent the legs are pinned, and whether or not they were damaged to the point that there were unusuable anyway. Just the fact that the T-X had to detach (or rip off) its legs and the fact that it lost most of its mimetic sheath is pretty annoying though, especially given the fact that the older T-1000 survived similar circumstances without any apparant damage. Sonicboom2007 15:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

remember that the t-1000 was completely liquid metal so it is virtually impossible to physical damage it81.108.233.59 (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

and corect me if im wrong but when the t-x is caught without its legs under the door thing for a moment its mimetic face appears before slopping off —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.124.115 (talk • contribs) 03:40, March 16, 2008

Fair use rationale for Image:TX kill little boy.PNG
Image:TX kill little boy.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Gynoid (again)
I've changed "gynoid" to "android" in the lead, based on a proper source. Using the term "gynoid" without a source is original research. Thanks, Gwernol 00:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's settled, she is indeed a gynoid, or rather a female cyborg. Either way, they are both better terms than android. Samuraiman89 20.07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * your "source" for the gynoid term seems to be identical to the Kristanna Loken page. Who plagiarized who, I don't know. But this looks like a bit of a circular reference. My dictionary doesn't have the word gynoid, sounds like something that a geek made up. Perhaps someone can figure out what term the authors of the terminator series use, and cite that.

merge and now back again.
This article was redirected by a responsible contributor with good reasons of why he done so. Assuming good faith I reverted it only because I feel that this article has possibilities and I do feel that the character can pass as being notable. If anyone can help at that I would greatly appreciate it. Any suggestions are welcome here. Thank you. Jhenderson 7 7 7  15:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the complaint that the article has in-universe information, so I have removed the passages that seem to focus too much on the in-universe aspects of the character. I do think there can be a stand-alone article, though. Here are some references I found. First, there is a Cinefex article that covers the film and the effects behind this character. While we can touch on the coverage in the film article, we can go in more depth here. For example, this on page 203 says, "As soon as the Terminatrix transports herself into the world of the past, she immediately adopts the symbols of aggressive female sexuality: a red leather outfit, black boots, a sports car, and even larger breasts." In addition, this references T-X in multiple pages in the index, even with "capacities of" and "destruction of" subsets. Yet another reference is this, where pages 137–145 are devoted to the character herself. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Good find. I did agree with the in-universe statement as well. If placing these type of sources on the article do you want to place them on the article? Or would you rather me? You do know what these books from Amazon are saying more than me. :) Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not able to access them fully, unfortunately. I navigated through snippets, indexes, and search results to find these references that talk about the character more than in passing. Someone with library access and the interest in this topic will have to put them together. I guess we could put them in a "Further reading" section in the meantime, though there's no real title or chapter devoted to the topic. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oooh...that's why I am not a big fan citing with books as much as citing with the web. Because most likely I never read it. But it does seem that notability has been proving better than before and a "further reading" section sounds doable to me if that can be done. Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Citing books is way better than citing the web, because inevitably websites redesign or go defunct and urls go dead, and the source is more or less gone forever...digital info is fleeting. Analog (hard-copy) info exists, unchanged, as long as someone somewhere in the world preserves a copy. I've lost hundreds of citation links to sites like Rolling Stone and Billboard when they went through redesigns and simply dumped a lot of their past content, but I've never lost a single citation to a book or magazine. Anyway...


 * The primary rationale behind my redirection of this article was that this is a character whose only significant appearance is in a single film. Every source presented, including the 1 in the article (The Winston Effect) and (I assume) those presented above by Erik discuss her in the context of the film and its design, special effects, and themes. Therefore it makes no sense to separate discussion of the character from discussion of the film as a whole. Adding sourced commentary about the T-X's design, creation, role, and significance to the article Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, which is only a C-class article, would greatly enhance and improve that article. Having a separate article for the single character, and trying to build it up with sources, while the film article languishes is really putting the cart before the horse as well as illogically working in the opposite direction of WP:SS (build up the main article first, then if certain elements seem to warrant stand-alone articles, branch them off). It would serve Wikipedia, and this character, better to build up the T-X content in the film article, and only to consider a split if/when that article is substantially improved and the T-X content has built up enough that it seems it could be summarized and split. Instead, what do we have? A C-class film article and a separate character article that has 1 paragraph of real-world info and 5 sections of plot summary. Hardly what we're aiming for as far as article development.


 * I'm sure someone will make the (flimsy) argument that because the T-X "appears" in a couple of comics, she warrants a stand-alone article. This is a misleading argument. If the source coverage all deals with the character in the context of the film, then discussion of the character belongs in the context of the film. If all there is to say about the character's other appearances is that she appeared, then that can be mentioned in the film article too when discussing the character's impact. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds like I need to make some things clear. I never said that citing webs is better, I am just better at doing that than citing books. I just need read books more often I suppose. Jhenderson  7 7 7  23:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I was just saying that as a general comment, in reply to your last comment. Of course both kinds of sources are welcome, though it seems that with this topic the print sources may offer more substantial commentary than the web ones. What are your thoughts on my comments about developing the T-X topic within Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, rather than as a separate article. To me that seems the logical way to proceed. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I sort of thought the character could stand out on her own as a notable fictional character which I do believe her to be so so I am not so sure about it. Are you talking about just placing information about her from the cast section. Jhenderson 7 7 7  00:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying the character isn't notable (from a general standpoint) but that it is not notable enough (from a Wikipedia standpoint) to merit a stand-alone encyclopedia entry. It would be much better service to our readers and to our own articles to cover the T-X in detail within the film article. I'm not talking about moving any info from the film article over to here: I'm talking about taking the 1 paragraph of sourced, real-world commentary that is currently in this article and moving it over to the film article (if that info doesn't already exist in there somewhere) and redirecting this article to the film article. Even with Erik's cleanup, this article is still almost entirely plot summary (the "characteristics" bit is just plot summary in another form), and the T-X's role in the plot is well-covered in the film article already. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In response to the request for response on WT:FILM, I'm honestly not sure. I understand your point about the character content belonging at the film article, but I don't really expect Rise of the Machines to be cleaned up anytime soon. In addition, I think there are cases in which a character can transcend the film. The character is a sort of icon, though not at all in the big leagues. From what I can tell, "Terminatrix" has been mentioned in retrospect, as if the character is one to remember especially. Also, the Nanovision reference is a very, very good one to use that focuses very strongly on the character, to the point where it would be out-of-place to be in the film article. (Check it out if you can.) This topic is one of the very few that fall in that area of being only a film character, since so many "film characters" appear in different sorts of media. So I feel that separate topics are helpful because there will be different paths of development that will not overlap that much. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I took a different approach to research the character, and I found that this has three full pages (164–166, using "T-X" and not "Terminatrix") devoted to the character, much like Nanovision. I think that both references' character study mean that this character warrants her own article. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Another reference here, partially on pages 77–78. The gist of it, the character is a female icon (for better or worse), and there is gender-related commentary about the character. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The question is: do these sources discuss the character in a stand-alone way, or in the context of the film itself? Because if it's the latter then I still think that the best home for the information is in the Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines article. Again, we're dealing with a character that's only in a single film. Her significance is therefore inextricably tied to that film. By using these sources to improve the film article—discussing the concept, creation, role, reception, and impact of the character—we end up with better coverage of the character and of the film as a whole. Again, cart before the horse... --IllaZilla (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not believe this character is notable. I wasn't aware of her existence until I was pointed to this on the fictional characters WikiProject, though that might just be because I avoid the Terminator series in general (not my type of film). Notable? Perhaps. Notable enough for an independent article outside of her sole major appearance? Doubtful. Harry Blue5 (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Did you review the sources I mentioned? You may be able to see a part of them via Google Books Search or Amazon.com previewing. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Just because you have never heard of it doesn't make the character not notable. There is so many things in Wikipedia that you can go "Oh I never heard of this before". And you have obviously stated why by saying that you avoided the Terminator movies before. Anyways we should judge by sources. Erik, is there any citations outside of Amazon such as news reports or interviews. Because most likely I am not sure with what a book is going to say. And if I read it inside the web I should know what to to. Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

section Terminator 3
I'm doing a bunch of copyediting in the section Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines: assorted smoothness and readability fixes, and using the historical present tense uniformly (see WP:TENSE). But a couple of bits are simply garbled and unreadable, and since I haven't seen any of the movies (Gasp!) I can't figure out what they're supposed to be saying.

The following extracts don't reflect my other copyedits, none of them major.
 * 1) “ The T-X is the main antagonist in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, sent back to try to stop John Connor from founding the human resistance by killing off his future allies, as Connor's location is unknown, along to ensure that Skynet and its machines will rise without interferences. ”
 * 2) * What is "along" doing here? It looks left over from a cut-and-paste error, but even taking it out, how does the part of the sentence that comes after it fit with the rest?
 * 3) “ The T-X also succeeds in mortally wounding Robert Brewster after he activated Skynet and activates all of the T-1s and Hunter-Killer prototypes and had them kill all of his staff, so that they could not shut it down, even though Skynet had already spread to computers worldwide. ”
 * 4) * OK, Brewster activated Skynet — at least, that's what the sentence says. Who activates/d the T-1s and Hunter-Killer prototypes: T-X or Webster? Whose staff do they kill, and who makes them do it, and why? So the staff can't shut down Skynet? What does the "even though" clause modify, and how?

Obviously this would be easier to do for someone who knows the story. If you want to fix these, be my guest! If you want my participation, please me. --Thnidu (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)