This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mystar (talk | contribs) at 12:00, 31 August 2006 (→Opening statements: I meant WLU, sorry ;p). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 12:00, 31 August 2006 by Mystar (talk | contribs) (→Opening statements: I meant WLU, sorry ;p)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Opening statements
If that is the correect method. I've sit/sat on several boards (IRL) as an advisor, but I've not done this before, so I'm speculating that this is a correct coruse of action.
Well, do we want half-truths? Or do we want be "honest" and publish fact? Goodkind has a well-written and colorful series that deserves an equally well-written encyclopedic page. As Omni stated, "Let's face it, we all agree that allowing a lie or a half-truth is a discredit to all who view and edit Misplaced Pages". I couldn't agree more. The bottom line is this; some have shamelessly edited his work simply because they don't like the way the series is going. That in itself if not reason or license to post devaluating opinion meant to smear the man. Again, I say fact IS fact and is pertinent to being encyclopedic knowledge. Anyone?
Mystar 04:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I also have a problem with WLU suddenly popping up and wanting to participate. WLU has had nothing of any concern previous to this particular situation. WLU is not identified and who the old SN was/is, and there for it must be presumed that he/she is quite possibly looking to alter the consensus from a positive direction. WLU could be friend or foe, so to speak. But the fact that WLU suddenly and with out any previous edit history or interest in Goodkind, let along Wiki in general, is suspect in the extreme. Mystar 11:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)