Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:57, 6 September 2006

http://www.terrygoodkind.com//chats/PIchat5.php

You have identified yourself as the webmaster of terrygoodkind.com. I ask that you act in good faith by restoring the contents of http://www.terrygoodkind.com//chats/PIchat5.php. Understand that it is cached indefinitely by Google and various quotes have been copied into other web sites under the fair use doctrine. This allows us to cite it at will. Unfortunately, removing it from the official site only makes Goodkind look like he's hiding something, which I'm sure is not the case. Al 17:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

As I stated, I have not identified myself as webmaster of Terry goodkind.com, but rather www.terrygoodkind.net. As for the afore mentioned interviews, you may or may not have noticed .com is undergoing a new look. Some of the content is not yet restored, but will be.

However, that is not the point. So Goodkind has an opinon of his works? So a few trolls got togather and asked Goodkind a loaded question, after posting that it was going to be a loaded question, and afterwards admidted that it was loaded... What you have is simply an interview. Some would wish to make more of it than it is. The point is that this site is for encyclopedic information and not for cross burning. You are allowing the cross burners a forum for their POV, when the site should be information as to the author and not petty gripes a few disgruntles ex-fans have.

I haev reviewd many many other wilipedia pages and see nothing like the crap you keep allowing here.

So S'up with that eh?

This policy in a nutshell: Misplaced Pages is first and foremost an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested to build a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Please avoid the temptation to use Misplaced Pages for other purposes, or to treat it as something it is not. 1. Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. See Misplaced Pages:No original research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Misplaced Pages will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Not all information added to Misplaced Pages has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion. Opinions on current affairs is a particular case of the previous item. Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Misplaced Pages is not the medium for this.

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox

Misplaced Pages is neither a mirror nor a repository of links,

Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Misplaced Pages articles are not:

-àIt is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis because of Misplaced Pages's prohibition on original research.ß--

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground Also, do not create or modify articles just to prove a point

Need I say more?24.236.196.174

T. Goodkind

I would like to extend a welcome. I see you have taken a good look at Goodkind’s page. So me good work I see. Although Terry has no Internet, he would like some to add some content and pertinent facts. Can you help? Mystar 05:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'd love to help. I'm always looking to improve the status and quality of articles on Terry Goodkind and his books. Let me know what you need help with, and I'll see if I can be of assistance. - Runch 14:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Message for You

Mystar, I have left you a message on the Terry Goodkind talk page entitled: More Misguided Edits by Mystar. Please read it, I think it will be beneficial to you. - Runch 03:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have two points to make:

• 1. I have 0 ASOIAF edits. None.
• 2. I'm not going to expend any more energy trying to fight you. If you truly don't understand why your edits are summarily deleted, then I can't say anything to make you understand. I've tried pointing you towards a wealth of information on Misplaced Pages, and others have tried to explain to you the error of your ways. You either just don't understand or refuse to listen. All I can say is read the discussions on the talk pages again, perhaps you will learn why most of your edits are POV.

You should know that I have asked for a moderator to help with the edit warring on the TG page. You are probably not willing to admit it to yourself, but if you continue on making edits as you have been in the past, you may very well get banned from Misplaced Pages for a short period of time. Again, read the discussions on the talk page, and consider wisely before editing. - Runch 14:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attack Notice

"Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. "
Your insults on Talk:Terry Goodkind have gone on long enough, Mystar. If you violate the rule on personal attacks again, I will post your actions on the intervention noticeboard. - Runch 18:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As I stated in another forum, I'll assume that you also did the same for the other peopel who are attacking me. If not then I can only say it means very little for you to post it on me and forgo the others. mystarMystar 02:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Terry Goodkind#Verifiability of "online chat". Misplaced Pages has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. NeoFreak 03:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

bub,I didn't make any,so get off my ass!Mystar 03:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your contined attacks esp against Werthead in the form of name calling has already been refered to the administrator notice board for action. NeoFreak 03:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Notice

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead.

- Happy Editing, Runch 15:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In Reply

Your explanation about the "worthead" incidents is believable and understandable and I'm glad that won't be an issue any more. As for you accusations of "editing several pages of material you had posted in the past, in an attempt to make it friendlier" I don't understand or recall the instance in which you are refering to. Could you provide me with a link or example so I can understand where you are coming from? Also from you: "I've countless pages of attacks and openly encouraging attacks about Goodkind, starting and instigating Goodkind bashing etc. from you on everything from ASOFAI to Dragonmount to Bakkers page". I don't frequent the Dragonmount or Bakker pages (and it's ASOIAF not ASOFAI) and don't understand that accusation either. Again clarification would be helpful to me. I also do not recall "bashing Goodkind" or posting "vehemently negative opinion" anywhere. Any examples would be helpful. Thanks in advance. NeoFreak 04:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll be only too happy to provide them. Give me a day to pull them out of my files.Mystar 04:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, thanks again. NeoFreak 04:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Would it be alright if I emailed your yahoo account? If so I'll use your listed account. NeoFreak 13:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Progress

I think the TG article is making alot of progress. I also thought most of your edits to George RR Martin and A Song of Ice and Fire were on the money. I was wondering where you see the TG and SoT articles going from here? NeoFreak 04:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input.

Personally, I see them going nowhere as WLU is determined to keep arguing with everything I do, or anything about Goodkind that isn't either sterial or of negitive content

Mystar 04:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mystar,

Check out your user page, I added some comments. I'm not trying to argue with everything you do, I'm trying to get you to justify your edits of the page. My rationale for why I want the changes I do are listed on your user page, I could move them here if you'd like. I'm not trying for negative content, I'm trying for accurate content. I'd also like to say thanks, this whole thing has improved me as a wikipedia editor. WLU 22:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

WLU's Notice

(Originaly posted by WLU on Mystar's user page)

Hey Mystar, how you doing? I'd like to use your page and my own talk page to discuss things about the TG page since otherwise we use up a lot of space on the discussion page. You can link the discussion page here if you want to, that way people can see what we're talking about. Now, down to business.

The reason I took out the 'best known for' is because if you look at the link that you provided, it does not say he was best known for it. It just says that he fixed antiques, repaired violins, and painted. It does not say 'best known for'. If someone wanted to look it up, to see where this information came from, all they would get would be a page where it lists a bunch of occupations, and in no way distinguishes one from any other, in particular, it doesn't distinguish the painting thing from the rest that are listed. Therefore, according to this page, he is not best known for it, he is just as well known for painting as he is for restoring antiques and fixing violons (or whatever else is on the page, I don't remember right now but I can easily check the reference - that is why it is there).

If I edited out any mention of him painting, I would clearly be in error, because the referenceable page very clearly states that he was a painter. It just does not say he is best known for it. So, I leave it in, and leave the reference, and have it list the occupation as one among many. This is not vandalism, I am not putting in any erroneous information, I am just making the page reflect what the reference shows. Just like if I looked up one of the references for the NYT bestsellers lists for the books, and found that it was a NYT bs during 2003, whereas the wiki page says it was a bs in 2004. It maintains the accuracy of the page. I don't understand why you call it vandalism.

I just found the 20 million reference on the prophets inc website, so I'm content to let that lie with the disclaimer of domestic book sales. However, I did note that on the prophets inc page (http://www.prophets-inc.com/the_author/) it says "As soon as I started writing Wizard’s First Rule, I knew writing was my calling. I’d found something to which I truly want to dedicate my life.”

This contradicts what is currently on the Terry Goodkind page in wikipedia, where it says being an author was a life-long ambition. Perhaps you could clarify since you are in regular communication with Mr. Goodkind. Should the wikipedia page in fact be accurate, you could also let him know that the prophets inc. page is inaccurate. Note that since both of the pages I am talking about are right there as clickable links, you can easily check both and verify their accuracy for both. This is the purpose of good referencing, it allows people to examine the evidence for themselves, and make their own decisions. I think that both Mr. Goodkind and Ms. Rand would both appreciate this.

This information is also on my own wiki page. user_talk:WLU

Thank you for reading this, and I look forward to your reply.

WLU 18:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they are in contradiction, just very widely written so as to miss. From what I've been told, Terry enjoyed literature from a very young age and developed an ambition to write, but didn't know exactly the details of what he would write. It wasn't until he was writing Wizard's First Rule that he truly understood that writing was his calling. Mystar can certainly clarify this further. Omnilord 23:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, as long as he can reference it.

Hey Mystar, did you want to add some of his quotations to his wikiquotes page? I think that 'novelist not a fantasy author would be most appropriate there. Thanks,

WLU 13:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Plot Introductions

Hi Mystar, I see you've been rewriting the plot introductions to the books in the SoT series. I'm not questioning the factual validity of your edits (after all, I have a feeling you know the series much better than I do), but I do think that in several instances you put too much information in the intros. After all, the introduction is supposed to give the reader a very general idea of the novel without (ideally) giving away any plot details from the novel itself. In that sense, I think the general gist of the original plot intros may have been better (in some instances).

That being said, when I have a chance, I might try and trim down some of the sections you've written to try and keep the sections accurate while removing anything that might be construed as "spoilers". It might take me a few days to get around to it though, I've been pretty busy lately.

Ok, take it easy. - Runch 15:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No offence, but the info contained within the Plot summery is fine, it is nothing more than would be found on any info site or any book description. They only give pertinent info and no spoilers.

HOWEVER!!! The rest of the pages are abysmal! Sorry to have to say it, but the book plot summaries are so full of misinterpretation and supposition/conjecture they need to be redone. I've already started and will be doing all of them, so that they will reflect proper information and not people assuming that this or that happened.

I will be up front and lay it out, the people placing the whole criticism thing in Naked Empire and Pillars, are in the minority. They only so called criticism calling it too "preachy" are a select few. You will not find that on any professional review, nor will you find it on any thing other than a select few other authors message boards. I simply will not allow such smearing attempts to succeed. We can state the reality of the content and that it has some long discourses from Richard helping the Bandakar to understand what they are misunderstanding, and some directives of understanding to help the reader better understand and grasp the contextual inference of the book. We can make statements without using words that are placed there to demoralize someone reading it in an attempt to dissuade them from reading it and to pre condition them to what they would read. Further, it is acceptable to place information to assist a reader, but not to make up the mind of the one looking for information.....as we have seen.

As I've said, I've several pages of info and content from several people stating the fact they are openly asking people to make such posts on Goodkind's Wiki page, and egging them on. Not to mention these same people suggesting that negative content be placed etc. All you gotta do is ask. Mystar 22:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)