This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mystar (talk | contribs) at 14:29, 22 January 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:29, 22 January 2007 by Mystar (talk | contribs)(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)
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 you leave 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)
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)
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)
WLU's continued personal attacks and bad faith
According to the links you provided, there is no reason I can't keep the TG comment on my user page. WP:NPA applies to other contributors, not to content. To clarify, it means I can't make personal attacks about you anywhere on wikipedia, but I can keep my own opinions on the topic of TG's interview up. If you can provide policy saying I can't say I think Terry Goodkind is a moron on my user page, I'll think about taking it down after I read it myself. Be sure to provide the link, I don't feel like digging.
To clarify (because I still find your talk postings difficult to understand), your post on my talk page is an effort to get me to remove the sentence "(check it out, that interview no-one wants to know about, sweet! He's a moron!)" from my user page, or at least the section where I call him a moron, specifically the sentence saying "He's a moron". At its most basic, you want me to cease calling Terry Goodkind a moron on my user page. Provide me a link to the policy and section where it says I am unable to post the TG=Moron bit on my user page, after I read it, I'll think about taking it down. I'm keeping the "check it out, that interview no-one wants to know about, sweet!" bit no matter what. Doesn't attack anything.
Oh, and since the chat is now available and verifiable, isn't the inchoatus now available for inclusion in the TG bio page? I believe that was what was keeping it from being included on the page. Boy, I bet the webmaster of that particular page is embarrassed they ever posted that self-daming little bit of nonsense.
WLU 03:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Well as I said....lol... you show your ignorance more and more. You will note we do not use that chat as any means of verification of content. The inchoatus thing is just an opinion of a simple minded person (I feel sorry for his lack of abilities and perception). And as Runch has pointed out it has no merit. It is only a blog designed to attack Goodkind and his opinion. Which as I might add is against Wiki policy...but then you already know that :)
As I've said in the past, you really have no idea about the books or what Goodkind is saying due to the fact that you haven't read them. What we do see is your personal opinion coloring your abilities. You think you dislike him and his works, so you will do anything you can to smear him. Most assuredly not NPOV are you.... Your history contribs attacking me and Goodkind speak for themselves. You just cannot be unbiased.
And as for the Webmaster being embarrassed...lmao hardly... It is a great interview full of insight, truth and pertinent content to societies Ills today. No we all love the chats, that one especially. It has gotten more good press than you'll ever know. AND it brings people into the site and discussion agreeing with his point of views. Again how sad for you my dear. Still unable to be honorableMystar 03:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- So... what you're saying is you can't find anything in the policy. OK, up it stays. WLU 12:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
How you interpret the rules is your problem. As I said, it simply shows your lack of character and honor. It clearly shows your immaturity and slanderous intent.... petty very petty. How sad for you. Mystar 13:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- So... what you're saying is you can't find anything in the policy. Thanks for clarifying. WLU 13:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
As per Wiki policy with reguard to your continued attempt at adding peoples blogs...http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_people
"Biased or malicious content
Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.
Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on association."
As to your personal attack on your user page...
Also as you can see at the very top of this page http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks
 | This page in a nutshell: |
Also as you can see at the very top of this page http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks
| This page in a nutshell: |
of interest...Use the Talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in the article, not as a soapbox for advocacy.
Most notably is {{WP:UP
WP:USER }}
What can I not have on my user page?
Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Misplaced Pages
"libeling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea"
- Jimbo Wales, Misplaced Pages founder and leader
"If user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption".
Personally, I do not care what your personal opinion of the man is. Your attempt at character assassination is however poor form and bad faith. It indeed crosses the line. If you have such a burr under your saddle, perhaps you need to take a step back, as it is clear you cannot be neutral or unbiased. Take a look inward to see where you are falling short. Stating that you dis-like someone is fine, saying that you abhor his or her work and philosophy is ok as well. But you cannot attack someone even on your user page. It really discredits you and your ability to effectively edit in any kind of NPOV. It taints your work. I'm simply asking that you change your wording and bring it in line with Good Faith Editing and Wiki standards. Mystar 17:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
There's a reply to you on my talk page. WLU 19:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration case
I am posting my arbitration case shortly; as you are the other involved party, you now have a chance to post your own thoughts on the matter here, though this may change as I am not 100% certain about the proceedure. I will keep you posted.
WLU 14:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
No need to bother, as there is nothing to arbitrate. You simply need to learn that this is an open format and anyone may edit anywhere...oh and you need to act in good faith and be civil...Mystar 14:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)