Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:13, 10 November 2006

This user is a member of the Sword of Truth task force.

T. Goodkind

I would like to extend a welcome. I see you have taken a good look at Goodkind’s page. Some 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)

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)

Just please keep in mind that they need to be written in an encyclopedic tone. This is not a fansite or an advertisement page. Please see the pillars of creation page for more information and links. NeoFreak 06:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It is written as such. But also keep in mind that it needs to be written and worded properly.Mystar 11:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Can I email you about that stuff you gathered together for me? NeoFreak 11:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

indeed. mystar@chartermi.net Mystar 11:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks alot. I'll send you one soon. NeoFreak 11:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Bastique

Hey Mystar, technically you didn't provide the information. I did. And thank you for the compliment on the T'lan Imass page. Feel free to add content if you've read the books.WLU 23:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh well always looking for a way to break your word. I truly expected you to be a person who kept her word. I truly did. ANd I did provide you with proof... I gave you ONE of the names of the admins I spoke with. But we can ALL now see that you are not going to keep your word and just how good your word truly is. using a ploy like that is just bad form and weak.--Mystar 01:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Sword of Truth

The Sword of Truth WikiProject is now up and running. Thought you might like to know. It still has a long way to go before it'll look truly respectable, but it's a start. - Runch 18:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have something to discuss regarding page edits, please do so on talk pages of the articles, or on my own talk page. Using the edit summary gives me no chance to reply and does not allow you to disclose the full rationale for your edits. WLU 18:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on October 1 2006 to Terry Goodkind

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

My dear Mr. Connolley, I offer up my sincere regrets. I see your point and I will take my medicine, as a man should. After discussing it at length with several admins, I have come to see your point and heartily agree in my error. I was acting in Good Faith that what I saw as open contempt and vandalisms toward Terry Goodkind's page (see any contribs by WLU to assure your self of bad faith editing and edit warring), I was on the IRC channel while this was occurring and was asking for advise and help. Even they felt she was exerting overt ownership and was in the wrong. But that doesn’t make me right; I did err, and should be held accountable. I do appreciate your intervening and your insight. I am still relatively new to Misplaced Pages and not up to speed on all the guidelines and rules. I am learning and your efforts have added me in being a better editor.

Today I spend a great deal of time with a couple of admins and most notably JWSchmidt. JWSchmidt, helped me get a clear picture of my actions and what things I can do in the future to circumvent such actions again. As I told the Admins on the channel, I'll not disagree or postulate any unfairness. I’m a grown man as I will stand up and take my medicine. I will also not speak to WLU's actions as they speak for themselves ass do her contribs, nor will I presume to hypothesize on WLU's current torrent of attacks.

I am sorry for my actions, and shall endeavor to try harder. --Mystar 00:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

WLU's rant

I guess youleave me no choice but to lower myself to your petty squable and post such thens as your attacks, bad faith, page ownership admissions, removing other posters comments etc. how truly OCD petty...--Mystar 01:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a rant, and this is not a petty squabble. This is the first step in a dispute mediation process in which both our conducts will be weighed against each other, and binding arbitration could result. I will end my request and not pursue this further if you stop stalking me and stop making tendentious, inflammatory edits. WLU 03:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Again kindly stop editing my talk page. You are wrong this is petty...on your part. Pot calling th eKettle black and all... While I am in no way completely innocent of past actions, they were in the past. I have conducted my actions with Good Faith, and most of them checking first with several Misplaced Pages people and admins before making them. Yeah I have proof don't worry :)

You have removed other users comments, edited in bad faith, owned pages and attacked me as well as admitted you having an agenda against Goodkind where you started all this crapola.. It really is in your contribs you cannot hide it. Removing other users commentaries is not a very good thing to do.

As I've said. Yours agenda is clear. You dislike Goodkind, haven't even read him, yet you feel totally knowledgeable in attempting to add content that you know nothing about. Simply allowing other to think for yourself and make your mind up for you. You read a rant and think it justified, when you haven’t even taken the time or initiative to verify it for yourself.... seems to me there is a huge problem with that.

OH your "BFF Terry" also didn't earn you and brownie points. It is attacks and aggressive name calling/smearing that marks your agenda clearly. In the future please refrain from ugliness of that sort. It is very unbecoming of a lady.

In short, you may well try and get an action taken against me, but you are causing a great deal of exasperation along the way, simply because you have an agenda (your admission), which doesn’t bode well for your position. I’ve been editing in good faith. I’ve made some good edits, you simply cannot stand to have them stand is the problem. I happen to know a great deal of many herbal remedies. Your attack against me for taking an interest in that page is an attack and unwarranted. Things like trying to stir up trouble also go against Wiki policy. Trying to incite angst among users is a no no… so an admin just told me. That is not my problem. Page ownership is an overall Wiki problem.

I know I’ve been aggressive in the past, with good reason. One of them was banned, and as I’ve stated I’ve plenty of outside proof of planed attacks on TG’s pages as well as sources out side Wiki that specifically incite people to do what was being done.

BUT, my edits as of late are and have been good ones, and have also been discussed with seasoned Wikipedians before I made them. I spend a great deal of time on Misplaced Pages IRC discussing these things. I’d take a gooooood long look in the mirror before I moved forward were I you. The pot calling the kettle black isn’t going to sit well with anyone.

Stop owning pages, stop with your agenda, be an honorable person of your word and act in good faith and we will be just fine. The choice is yours. --Mystar 03:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Terry Goodkind mediation

Hello, I'm sorry it's been awhile, and I'm not sure if all of you are still interested in formal mediation, but I recently agreed to mediate that case. Please either accept or reject me as a mediator there, and if you accept, please let me know if you would prefer public or private mediation. If it's a stale issue, just say so. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 16:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Back

Hi Mystar, glad to see you're back. I don't think you've missed much (as you can tell, I haven't made almost any edits recently, 'cause I've been busy focusing on other things). Lunch would be nice - but unfortunately I live in Ann Arbor, not Lansing :-) - so it's kinda far for lunch. Thanks for the offer though - Runch 01:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

Mystar:

What I'm posting on your talk page are not rantings, they are the beginnings of a case for arbitration which could get you banned from editing wikipedia. These are points where you have violated policy. Your continued editing without changing your interactions with myself at least, could get you kicked off. Each diff that you removed was one point where I at least found your conduct objectionable. Your editing of another user's comments (i.e. mine) on a talk page because you do not agree with what is being said is not sensible, reasonable, or good practices. I should not have to revert a talk page.

Anyway, all that being said, I'm pursuing arbitration.

Other comments:

Reply by Mystar on Talk:Sword_of_Truth

• Notes from past arguments on this crapola....
• To WLU: Anything on a blog is not a reputable source (See Misplaced Pages:Reliable Sources). In addition, anything that TG may have said to any of his fans really is a completely trivial piece of information, and as such, it is not of an encyclopedic nature.
• Finally, to Mystar: Please stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you of vandalism (Please read Misplaced Pages:Vandalism and specifically the section entitled What vandalism is not). I've been contributing to this page for months now, and I have yet to see one instance of true vandalism by a regular contributor.

As always, lets all be civil here. Thanks, Runch 23:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Terry is not a sadist, don't make him out to be one just because he is able to create evil villains who can portray evil traits (IE sadism, violence, sexual-misconduct). If you want to address this, keep it local to the books/series, and don't make it sound like you are labelling the author with the same sweeping judgement. We can work on making it read appropriately in the appropriate article(s). Omnilord 22:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Again we seek creditable sources...professional and NOT POV driven or attacks simply because the bloger feel threatened by Goodkind's success Mystar 00:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

None of the sources are blogs. Which do you consider a blog?

If the author's opinions are not valid, then they should be removed from his bio page. I'm in favour of leaving them up, and including the opinion piece in the section below/on the SoT page.

I never said TG was a sadist (or I may have, but I am not trying to include that here), I included a section which discusses, in part, the sadistic elements of the series. Which is why I followed Omnilord's suggestion and put this up on the SoT page instead of the TG page - this is the page about the novels, not the author.

The reviews are not on blogs, they are on review websites. Most of it could be probably reduced to the infinity review and the Scifi review, along with the response from TG about the abusive relationship, which gives the section purpose rather than making it some random, headline-grabbing element.

Here's the section again in case you wanted to look at it for concrete examples. Please give me concrete examples, as labelling everything as incorrect doesn't let me understand your reasoning.

Criticism and themes

The Goodkind's sole body of work to date, the Sword of Truth series, has received both criticism and acclaim. Reviewers discuss the awkward and repetetive prose, and also the extremity of the sexual sadism and violence of the series. However, critics have also noted improvement in his writing over the development of the series, his ability to construct a detailed and creative world, and his writing of heroic characters with a powerful sense of morality. Goodkind himself has defended his inclusion of items such as torture, stating that (regarding Wizard's First Rule) his purpose was to highlight the helplessness, degredation and irrationality of an abusive relationship, not to shock or disgust.

1. Review at www.sfreviews.net
2. Review at www.flakmag.com
3. Review at christianfantasy.net
4. Review at www.inchoatus.com
5. ^ Review at www.infinityplus.co.uk
6. Interview at a Virginia booksigning