This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mystar (talk | contribs) at 01:33, 15 January 2007 (roflmao). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:33, 15 January 2007 by Mystar (talk | contribs) (roflmao)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | 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)
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)
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.
- 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)
- 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)
Your comment on my talk page
On lupus. I agree more needs to b e said. However, I fear that Oliver the very plastic surgeon will husttle over there and delete what I write, and replace it with promotional text. If you are interestied, you should look at the breast implant article, and the talkpage. The article was stunning in how Oliver misstated studies he cited to minimize ore ven trivialize a major risk with implants -rupture. Any input there on the talk page would be welcome. The article is locked at Oliver's version. It reads like a promo handout . Risks are minimal, we have a wealth of studies that show they are etc etc. Misrepresenting the rupture data; No mention of the lack of long term data to determine rupture rate over time (especially past 10 years) of what the effects are of migrated silicone. I could go on. I fear the article is hopeless since Oliver seems to 'own it' and must spend more time on WIkipedia promoting the things he sells, than is spent working, That may be a good thing, if it keeps even one woman from seeking his "services" - If his concern for his patients are consistent with his concern for the accuracy of the article....any woman should run, not walk, away from his office. I have a fear that nothing will happen with this artilce, unless more people come in to help with the 'mediation' - eg, give input on proposed versions. Oliver will probably not cooperate, since he has no incentive to do so. His interest is not accuracy.Jance 06:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I've been following that whole thing. My wife and I have great interest in that area and I agree Oliver is using his so-called "station of profession" to bully the page. The fact that it was locked is outrageous and less than fair. I don't think he would get away with changing the page, but we can try to work toward keeping that from happening. Having a wikistalker I'm more than familiar with people like that following you back to your edits and wreaking havoc with them for no more than their pleasure. I'm sure my wikienemy will also be on the prowl to Oliver to come over and edit.
Take solace though, actions of people like them are not what bother me, on the contrary...I find them sad amusing little people, as it is the fact that they are clueless in their own delusion and think they get to people like me. While it is important information, don't let it attach to you, rather allow it to make you think. As a wise person once said "People are stupid! They are willing to believe a lie, either because they fear it to be true, or they want it to be true". So they bury themselves in their little world of delusion to the exclusion of all else. Think of the solution! Not the problem. The problem exists, only the solution will of value.Mystar 13:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Mediation
G'day Ron,
Here is my rationale for why I wanted a reply from WikieZachl:
- I wanted to make sure that I had followed proceedures properly and the case hadn't been closed because I had, or had not done something that resulted in it not moving forward. This is for my own learning goals and in case I faced a similar situation in the future.
- I wanted to ascertain whether you had failed to engage in the mediation process, and this was why the case was closed. Were this the case, this means my next step, should you keep on wikistalking me (which you fortunately seem to have ceased beyond cat's claw, SLE, Barbara Hambly and eccentric contraction), would be arbitration, which could be unpleasant for both of us.
You should know by now I don't do things idly (unless it's my own user page, that's my fun place). Hopefully you understand why I'm pursuing this to the extent I am, and won't bother putting anything else up on my talk page unless it's got something worthwhile to say. I removed your comment from my talk page because I don't really care what you have to say about the topic - the information I want is from WikieZachl, not more melodramatic histrionics where you get to play the poor martyred soul yet again. If you want me to change my opinion of you, and if you want to give your edits a better chance of standing on the more disputed pages, you might try laying out why you make the changes you do, specifically, with examples that make sense. Generally I find you either don't give any rationale at all, or your articulation is so poorly worded I have no idea what you're trying to say and why you want the changes you do. It makes your edits look like they are made purely out of malice rather than any reason that should remain in the article. Try proofreading, or have someone else do it for you.
While we're talking: Though I resent the time it takes to give a point-by-point rationale for my changes, it fortunately seems to be keeping you at bay on the pages, and most of your recent relatively mild harassment is so spurious and absurd that it's pretty easy to keep in the edits I consider valuable. Also, other readers seem to appreciate it, I've got lots of positive feedback on the lupus page.
So, please don't involve yourself further in the matter of mediation - I don't care what your opinion is, and it really doesn't concern you anymore. You had your chance to try and interact in a reasonable fashion, and now I'm expecting you to resume your usual inarticulate howling.
By the way, you might consider if the negative reaction that Terry Goodkind gets on the internet isn't so much related to him, as it is related to how people are reacting to you, his ostensible internet representative. Myself, and apparently others on wikipedia at least, find interactions with you so aversive that I find myself disliking TG even more because of you. Think about it, but I doubt you will.
Thanks, please don't bother replying unless it's actually helpful, I've had enough insult swapping to last me a while.
WLU 00:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Lupus & BI
Oliver has been relentless in slanting the BI article, to the extent of even misquoting studies. At this point, I do not care to do anything more to the lupus article. Read what I wrote on http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:WLU. It appears that you have had some tiff with WLU, but he has offered to help with references to studies, or say something about there not being long-term longitudinal studies, etc. If he can do that, it would be great. The problem is that the FDA has approved silicone implants, without rupture studies that can even predict what the rupture rate is at 10 years and beyond. And the rupture rates or effects of rupture on women that had older styles of implants have never been studied, and there is no incentive to do so since they are no longer made.Jance 21:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Fuck SoT,
Why don't you try reading a real series like the Wheel of Time. And me telling you this is really a good thing. Its really harmful for you to continue reading such filth. Make the right choice man, go WoT.
read WoT! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.70.143.93 (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC).
Ahhhh yes....lol...lmao... Here we have it! A real use of intelligence and aplomb! Yes indeed that user really seared my cookies! Taught me a lesson...my oh my... All I can say is that users like you and WLU continue to show such continued ignorance that proves what you lack. So you have an opinion... cool... every one does. They are just like rectums. Everyone has them and they all stink...lol... The real delight for others and me in all this is that you just show what total lack of maturity and honor you have. WLU’s, who has never read more than a few interviews, continues to amuse us all with her inability to coherently speak to the true nature of the series. As it would see you also fall into that category as well. See the real truth in all this is that no one cares what you think. By running your lil rant it only shows your ignorance. Your inability to be honorable. You are an embarrassment to RJ and your peers with your schoolyard antics. As does WLU. The truth of the matter is clearly shown in that you both cannot let people make up their own mind for themselves. You feel it is incumbent upon you to slander and lie to scare people off rather than having people read and decide for themselves… truly priceless indeed. Which only makes my point about your inabilities. How sad for you. Mystar 01:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)