| Revision as of 14:55, 7 September 2006 editNeoFreak (talk | contribs)3,402 edits →Drefan← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:04, 10 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,329,347 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{NovelsWikiProject}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{oldafdfull | date = 21 February 2007| result = Speedy Keep| page = Stone of Tears}} | |||
| {{NovelsWikiProject|class=Start|importance=Mid}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| | |||
| {{WikiProject Novels|importance=Mid|fantasy-task-force=yes|fantasy-importance=Mid|sword-of-truth-task-force=yes|sword-of-truth-importance=High}} | |||
| }} | |||
| ==Plot intor== | |||
| What you seem to be unable to understand there is a big contextual difference between what "is" cited in the book and your opinion of what you want the plot intro to say. Like a "Firestorm" is contextual and applies the proper matador for what is occurring with the plague. Devastating it is, BUT what you keep missing in your attempt to malign the page is that the Plague is acting like a firestorm, as it was intended to by the people who placed it into action....AND.... is in keeping with the prophecy that announces the bound-fork prophecy... Or perhaps you didn't read the book..which then makes a great deal of sense. I suggest you WLU and NEO check your premises and stop trying to act in a retaliatory manor for a proper edit I made. Your words betray your intent | |||
| ] 16:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I wasn't "revenge editng" I was making a legit edit and just poking a little fun at the same time, sorry to ruffle your feathers, no offense intended. My point is that using exciteable wording to describe sometihng in what is suppoed to be a concise overview is inaproprite. It doesn't matter if the author used the same term to describe it or not. It's too petty to get into an edit war over though so I' ll wait for some other editors to take a look at the whole situation. ] 18:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::"just poking a little fun at the same time," That is some of crap that mystar has an issue with, and I find it to be inappropriate and offensive. Please stop. | |||
| ::As for the Firestorm word, it is a contextually correct word adjective for describing what is going on in the book, plane and simple. ] 02:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Drefan == | == Drefan == | ||
Latest revision as of 01:04, 10 February 2024
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 21 February 2007. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
Plot intor
What you seem to be unable to understand there is a big contextual difference between what "is" cited in the book and your opinion of what you want the plot intro to say. Like a "Firestorm" is contextual and applies the proper matador for what is occurring with the plague. Devastating it is, BUT what you keep missing in your attempt to malign the page is that the Plague is acting like a firestorm, as it was intended to by the people who placed it into action....AND.... is in keeping with the prophecy that announces the bound-fork prophecy... Or perhaps you didn't read the book..which then makes a great deal of sense. I suggest you WLU and NEO check your premises and stop trying to act in a retaliatory manor for a proper edit I made. Your words betray your intent Mystar 16:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't "revenge editng" I was making a legit edit and just poking a little fun at the same time, sorry to ruffle your feathers, no offense intended. My point is that using exciteable wording to describe sometihng in what is suppoed to be a concise overview is inaproprite. It doesn't matter if the author used the same term to describe it or not. It's too petty to get into an edit war over though so I' ll wait for some other editors to take a look at the whole situation. NeoFreak 18:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- "just poking a little fun at the same time," That is some of crap that mystar has an issue with, and I find it to be inappropriate and offensive. Please stop.
- As for the Firestorm word, it is a contextually correct word adjective for describing what is going on in the book, plane and simple. Omnilord 02:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Drefan
Who is Drefan? The article mentions him at the end, saying that Kahlan can't defeat him, but this is the only time he is ever mentioned. I haven't read the book myself, so I don't know. Would someone who has read the book please fill in the missing information? Roachmeister 23:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- From the first paragraph of the plot summary: Richard's half-brother Drefan, a high priest of a secret sect, does however succeed in curing Cara. I think this makes it perfectly clear who Drefan Rahl is. Also, there is no character page for Drefan because realistically, he's such a minor character (appearing in only this novel) that he doesn't merit his own article. Hope this helps. - Runch 02:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right - I missed that sentence. Thanks! Roachmeister 14:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Tone and content
The problems of tone and content are in this article as the other individual SoT pages. Please see the Talk:Stone of Tears page for more info. NeoFreak 14:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Categories: