Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Omnilord (talk | contribs) at 20:25, 22 November 2006 (Repaired some > with : and replied to WLU). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

Reply

Though doubtless you'll either erase or edit my message, here's my reply to your thoughts.

I find your apparent and unconcern for your misinformation sad. What you may not be aware of is that you so called "carefully referenced information" was in fact wrong.

See, you say 'misinformation' and call my information wrong, yet you have yet to provide anything beyond your own experience to back it up. If my information is so wrong, so glaringly, obviously wrong, and you're not just bluffing, it should be pretty easy to find something to back up your assertion.

You continue to own pages where people constantly have to go behind you and fix your misinformation.

Actually Ron, I think the exact same thing about you. Generally in my efforts to fix the stuff you post I end up finding out something else useful to put up on the page that improves it, so it's not a lost cause, but it really does take time away from other things I'd rather be doing on Misplaced Pages.

The sad part of it is that usually people walk away because they have lives and have no desire to get into an edit war...unlike you.

Is this you being funny again? Do you see the contradiction here? We've both been tagged for breaking the 3 revert rule, and we've both reverted each other's edits on the Cat's Claw page what, twice today? Anything you accuse me of, you have done as well. Do you not see the contradiction?

Again I'm asking you to stop your incessant edit warring and page owning.

You mean like replacing the reference in a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal where it discusses the involvement of Cat's Claw in kidney failure? I think that's a whole lot more useful than a general warning that CC should be used with caution like other herbals. If you have a reason to remove the reference, please let me know what it is. That's the thing I find most frustrating about trying to edit with you, you never seem to justify yours. I can't even argue with you 'cause usually the most I've got to go on is stuff like "I talked to Terry and he said it was so." How is anyone supposed to build consensus or a verifiable entry with that?

You mock what is for me and many people who suffer with Lupus the fact that taking the wrong things can indeed kill. Placing incorrect information can lead to many kinds of adverse reactions.

One would hope Misplaced Pages would be a starting point, not a final diagnosis. I also think the warning about kidney failure is sufficient to dissuade people from going to the herbal section rather than the doctor. Again, a reason to keep that particular information in.

How sad for you that you make a mockery of such things. As I so stated on the talk page I show your information to be incorrect.

Um, no you didn't unless I missed something. You put up that quote that said CC has been used to treat a whole list of conditions, of which SLE was one of them. I don't know how that contradicts my point that manufacturers claim it can be used to treat SLE. Seems to support it, unless there is a subtle point I'm missing.

Lupus and Lupus SLE are two different things and require differing methods. And then we have the fact that you are adding needless Information and information that has already been placed.

See, the thing is every time I look for lupus, what comes up is SLE. When people refer to lupus, they seem to be referring to SLE. I realize there's five kinds of lupus on Misplaced Pages alone and a bunch of other ones on the Internet, but it seems that Lupus=SLE for the most part. Perhaps you should create pages discussing the more specific aspects of whatever lupus you are talking about that isn't SLE, drug-induced Lupus Erythematosus, Lupus nephritis, Lupus pernio,or Lupus vulgaris, the five kinds that are currently on wikipedia. I'm too busy trying to find time to edit the Steven Erikson articles. And in response to your concrete comment about Lupus not equalling SLE, I altered the link so now the article on CC links specifically to SLE, the type of lupus referenced in the weblink that says CC was used to treat SLE. Specific feedback I will edit for, but as heartfelt as your electronic sighs seem to be, they are less convincing than a web article with a references section. I'm not sure what your academic background is, but mine leans heavily towards double-blinded placebo trials (and qualitative research oddly enough).

Anyone who comes in behind you and fixes anything, your ego will not allow it to stand, No you have to go reedit in a lame attempt to show your page ownership.

Um, I think you'd find that rather inaccurate, if you check my contributions, which you apparently seem to do. I generally have issues with your edits since they seem to be pretty spiteful and not particularly helpful (by the way, will you PLEASE correct the damage to the lupus article? There are still two treatment sections, and I don't know the difference between "Known Treatment" and (regular?) "Treatment". The introduction of the page is designed to provide a brief preview of the rest of the article - there should be no information there that's not in the main body. You breaking it up into two sections just messes it up. That is "Lupus Erythematosus" specifically). If I owned pages, I would have re-worked that one months ago.

Providing correct and pertinent information is not a frivolous endeavor. As I have said in the past.

I think you need a comma splice in there, not a period.

People use Misplaced Pages as research for their well-being and better health ....not just for facts.

Misplaced Pages (and research in general) should be a collection of facts. Specific research should also include interpretation, Misplaced Pages should not. People may be using wikipedia for info regarding health, so I left in the section about how Cat's Claw might have caused kidney failure for that reason. That's a sore point, and one of the reasons I suspect and correct your edits.

You need to behave and take this seriously.

You need to play fair, which means saying, for real, why, with references or at least justification, why you make the changes you do, if they are being contested. That's why I spend the time on the talk pages. Also, it's Misplaced Pages, it's fun, and it's publically editable. Half the changes on the site involve the word penis for God's sake. You can't take it that seriously.

With such things as medicine, herbal remedies, homeopathic remedies, such information is too valuable to treat in such a silly manor as you do. Yes people’s lives do depend on such PROPER information.

I would think that people's lives depend on their doctors mostly. I would not expect someone with lupus (again, Lupus erythematosus) to solely use wikipedia for diagnosis and treatment. Misplaced Pages should be a starting point for research (hence the references), not a finishing point. I edit in the manner that I do so my information is justified and verfiable, which I do not think of as silly. Again, I would categorize many of your edits as spiteful. But why should we be the ones to decide, let's take it up with arbitration? Since you feel so strongly that you are in the right, you should have no problem with this. Now, I'm expecting you to delete this right away (thank God again for diffs and history) without a reply, because I don't think there's much you could say. Go ahead. I'll be posting it on my page as well.

Thanks for not calling me a girl, and generally items such as this should be posted on user talk pages, not discussion.

WLU 20:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Last time I waste my time with you…. Again leave me out of your delusional witch-hunts

Huh? What are you talking about?

You edit in bad faith and have a serious problem.

Specifically... what pages, what edits? I just don't know what you are talking about because your only rationalization is during your edit summary, which is often too general for me to respond to specific points. For instance, in the Cat's claw article, you talk about a "nonworking" reference. The reference works, it's just in paper. Go to a university library and look it up, or check it out on Google scholar. Because I'm a student I have access to many, many more on-line journal articles than most people, and that's what I use when I'm referencing. Assuming I edit in bad faith simply because it is me contravenes the fact that I'm actually referencing my changes. I'm not doing it willy-nilly, I'm basing it on what I can find in scholarly secondary peer-reviewed publications.

Let me explain…Wiki is not your soapbox and is not here to allow you to try and teach “ME” a lesion that you think I need. Sadly you are the one with the problem. You carry on about how my edits are causing your stress and your stomach to knot up.. That would be “your” problem not mine. I suggest you find another fixation to nit pick and leave me the hell alone.

They make me angry because you never, ever justify what you do, you just do it. Please, engage in a dialogue, we can find common ground in understanding why each other does what they do. Right now all I can see is that you seem to be spitefully editing my contributions because you don't like me, because you never say WHY you make the changes you do.

You started out harassing me, by your OWN admission. I find it laughable (as do many others) that you want me banned… Soooo you are hard at work trying to provoke me and twist my words in a lame attempt at such a stupid goal. Good God get a grip girl!

Uh, already clarified I'm not female, so please respect my statement of gender. I'm not twisting your words, 'cause you never say anything substantial.

This is the first time I've seen you clarify that little gender aspect and I've been following this thing all along.

Editing IS a serious thing AND a privilege! You again make a mockery of it. Misplaced Pages is not here to force me to interact with you.

No, but if we are editing the same pages, particularly if you stalked me to a page you have never touched before (eccentric contraction, Cat's claw, Barbara Hambly for three), you are forced to interact with me if you make contentious edits.

“WLU-See, you say 'misinformation' and call my information wrong, yet you have yet to provide anything beyond your own experience to back it up. If my information is so wrong, so glaringly, obviously wrong, and you're not just bluffing, it should be pretty easy to find something to back up your assertion.” WOWZERS!!!! Yet my edits are the ones correcting you and providing PEOPLER information. Take Lupus SLE…for instance… I had to correct the PROPER information and you refused to allow it to stand… When it is the proper information and reference. I call that backing it up dudette! I’m also chuckling at your obtuse attempt at calling me wrong, when your own words proved me correct. The information refer to it as SLE deal with it or nor I don’t care. I do care that the info is correct and proper.

What proper information? I'm pretty sure if you had a reference, I'd let it stand. I've got years of training writing referenced scientific papers, so if you've got actual references to backup what you are saying, I should leave it alone. Specifics please. Again, male, not female. Your sentence "The information refer to it as SLE deal with it or nor I don’t care. I do care that the info is correct and proper" seems to imply that you don't care if the information refers to SLE or another type of lupus, as long as it backs up what you consider proper information. This disturbs me, as the corollary implies that you would rather have information you believe to be true posted rather than information written by researchers be posted. That's pretty much completely contrary to the principles of wikipedia, and essentially makes it your soapbox.

You started out attacking me on Goodkind’s pages and you also got called out for a lame attempt at removing talk page info… AND because I edited GRRM’s pages… I laugh because even your buddies called my edits GOOD ONES! J How about that… Yes it only enraged you further to taunt me more… As can be seen in your own admission ad harassing me.

When did I remove talk page info? When I was archiving? That information was all in the archive, I didn't remove it. Also, you've removed or altered information I've posted on the talk pages more than once. I have diffs if you'd like to see them. And if your information on the GRRM page is still up, that's cause they're worthwhile, but if I keep changing other stuff you put up, it's 'cause it doesn't make sense, it contradicts my references, or the article itself, or a simple logical deduction (such as your constant edits regarding SLE versus Lupus versus Systemic Lupus Erythematosus). Also, I don't have any buddies on GRRM's page, the only person I really have interacted with at length is Crawdad, Moody, maybe Werthead.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think that was not directed at you WLU, but rather NeoFreak.

“WLU- I would think that people's lives depends on their doctors mostly. I would not expect someone with lupus (again, Lupus erythematosus) to solely use wikipedia for diagnosis and treatment. Misplaced Pages should be a starting point for research (hence the references), not a finishing point”.

Yes indeed! BUT as I have been to many many Lupus support Groups and contiue to interact with them. BUT that is as much of my priviet life as I will allow.

So we agree, people should not use wikipedia as their only source of information, only as a starting point. I'm not sure what relevance your discussion of support groups provides.

You keep babbeling about “arbitration”. I’m amused. If you feel you need help I encourage you to seek it both here and professionally in your home town. Seeing as you seem to be unable to handle someone correcting your edits and unable to admidt errors as well. Arbitration is not going to be several people telling you what you want to hear.

Arbitration can result in either or both of us being banned from editing wikipedia, temporarily or indefinitely. No professional help involved. I don't have a problem with people correcting my errors, if they can find them. Arbitration could have negative affects on both of us, so I'm following the proceedures I should, including mediation. Should mediation fail and you keep acting as you are, then I'll talk to arbitration. But before they even look at my/our case, they have to be sure I've tried mediation. Hence the dialogue and mediation posting under both our names on the mediation page.

again, I ask, why are you still so keenly interested in a topic you have admited you loath and know next to nothing about outside the first book?

By your own admission “WLU to Omnilord-

I want to see Mystar banned 'cause he's been wikistalking me, 'cause he doesn't engage in actual discussion with anyone who disagrees with him, 'cause he uses wikipedia policies punitively (and improperly), 'cause he's generally a crappy editor and 'cause he's generally disruptive. You could argue the same about me, but I don't think this holds in recent months. Anyway, I'm happy enough if he just ameliorates his conduct to civil and reasonable. As for wanting TG shamed, I'd say I've downgraded to wanting at least the fact that his books involve strong and explicit violence, torture, etc. It was my main reaction to reading WFR, and the reason I stopped reading at that point”.

From here.

Ever think about or wonder why I wrote that, why I might think that? Part of it goes back to my constant desire to understand why you make the changes you do, which you never discuss. Also, is it so unreasonable to want posted on the Sword of Truth page the mention of torture? I mean come on, 80 pages alone in WFR of him being beaten on, that's not something you want an 8 year old reading, is it? And, have you not wikistalked me in the past? Have you not had many people point out these things before? Incidentally, I altered the diff to be a link, it's more compact. Feel free to change it back.

There is nothing against informing article reads that the books are intended for a mature audience. What is being disputed is the underhanded method of trying to insert a negative bias because of the content and taking the content at face value or out of context without giving any credit to the meaning of it. The 80 pages of torture had a grand total of about 2-3 pages of anything gory. The rest was describing the psychology of what happens to a person who is tortured. In the story, it was used to show that sometimes people who inflict pain do so because they were driven mad by pain, driven so insane that they would be able to torture another human. It was also used to show that there is evil in the world, that good people can do evil deeds, and that evil deeds have consequences.

What you and those like you have been trying to do is make it sound like the books are all about graphic torture and sexual sadomasochism. That is flat out and entirely incorrect information which you are most certifiably NOT -BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION OF NOT READING THE BOOKS AFTER WIZARD's FIRST RULE- qualified to make judgement calls on nor should you be editing until you have a solid understanding of the material you are attempting to make more encyclopedic because by doing so you may inadvertantly change the meaning of the article, or worse, as has been seen in the past, purposely change it to have a nagative bias.

Again, familiarize yourself with the full scope of the material and don't edit until you do.

See you’re the one with the problem… not me. Your own witch-hunt is disgusting.

WIkipedia police is to edit! BOLDLY! I've done that. Misplaced Pages is not your soapbox to call me a "crappy editor" Mystar 02:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to actually discuss with me, I'll give you the diffs and places that I base my statement on, I'll tell you why I thought it was a bad edit, and you can tell me why you thought it was a good one. And if you've got problems with mine, we can do the same. It'll be a dialogue. WLU 19:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats the other thing, stop typing to sound like you're riding on a high horse, it is extremely condesending and is half the reason you and other like NeoFreak get almost no respect from people like mystar. Omnilord 20:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR

It is with great trepidation that I even reply to you as most exchanges we've had in the past were less than constuctive. I'm not going to argue that validity of my 3RR entry as that will be decided there or the "bad faith" editing accusations because that's an argument that is going no where. As for the "long standing version" you are almost correct. The old version of the Goodkind page had the phrase in question removed for the same reasons I removed it this time. This version was accepted by everyone (check history and Talk logs) as acceptable. Not until I deployed for about a month was this phrase put back in. I took this corrective action after I got back by changing it back to the agreed upon version. The logs speak for themselves. NeoFreak 22:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've re-read the 3RR rules and you are in fact correct about the 3RR rules, my apologies. Still I'm letting my report stand for reasons you can see on the report board. NeoFreak 22:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My response to you

The sad fact is that I did violate the 3RR. I was wrong and I did apologize. I also explained myself and took my punishment like a man, as I was wrong. But as is Neofreak's fashion he uses past mistakes as a tool to try and beat down people with them. Sad indeed. Early on I edited his precious A song of Ice and Fire pages. They were good edits and his fellows even said so, yet Neofreak felt it nessary to retaliate and that he did.

To that end we have since set up a Misplaced Pages project and it is going well. Sadly Neofreak feels it is nessary to pop in from time to time and revert something adding chiding remarks like “fanboy” to illicit retaliation. The fact is that we have a consensus on the terminology he keeps trying to remove what he doesn’t like. That being anything he thinks that puts Goodkind in a positive light. The wording he keeps removing is sourced, factual and proper. It was agreed upon by consensus and it has stood for some time.

My edits have been in good faith and my long past attitude toward spite removed. As anyone reading my contribs can see I edit in good faith and with proper referenced material. I cannot help it if two wikistalkers are out to get me and they will do everything they can to make me look bad. Again fact is I edit as per protocols BOLDLY! And that is not a crime. Defending my work is not a crime. I never have any problems save with Neofreak and one other user. So to say I’m a bad person as Neofreak does would be a lie

Well it is all to clear that NeoFreak has an issue the real problem is that it is with anyone who disagrees with him. Neofreak started editing Goodkind's pages in retaliation to an edit or two I made on his beloved A song of Ice and Fire, even his associates said they were good edits. So Neofreak mad a mad plunge into edit warring on the Goodkind pages..,but I digress...

We have a Wiki project for these pages and are working to bring them into better standing. Neofreak is aware of this and as you can see has not joined. The wording we have has been there for a while and was agreed upon by consensus. It is all to clear in reading Neofreak's past contribs to these Goodkind pages he has a burr under his bonnet about Goodkind (as do a few ASOIAF fans) and as such seeks out every opportunity to disrupt the work being done and then also spits out a word or two like the "fanboy" comment trying to illicit retaliatory warring. I seek only to correct what we have as agreement with other people on the project. To that end Neofreak is the one who was the vandal.Mystar 22:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking to me or did you just want this rant on the record? NeoFreak 01:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)