This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WLU (talk | contribs) at 16:42, 19 September 2006 (goodie, now I can re-create the article with a minimum of effort.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:42, 19 September 2006 by WLU (talk | contribs) (goodie, now I can re-create the article with a minimum of effort.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Anyone want to discuss my edits? Do so on my discussion page. I'll justify why I do what I do.
WLU 18:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Talk
I mostly edit for clarity, grammar and good referencing, I'm a new wikipedian, so I'm still learning.
WLU 13:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
and anyone who believes that... I've got a bridge for sale in Brooklyn...
Mystar 06:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Mystar, please allow me to take this time to thank you for improving my editing. I now reference pretty much everything that I write. You should try it. And thanks for your clarification of the War of Light and Shadow page, I think you did improve it. WLU 13:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes I know I did, that woudl be "why" I edited it. I hope that you are aware that "is" why people edit..or you should be aware of it for future referance
Mystar 12:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Why do you put stuff in quotations? It doesn't make any sense. Did you know that using stacked apostrophes will give you different effects? Two of them results in italics while three gives you bold. Is that what you are going for? Reference has four 'e's and no 'a'. Have you read the policy on bios of current people, where it stresses the importance of accurate, verifiable information? Have you read any of the policies on wikipedia? They are the reason I stopped editing with an agenda and started editing for accuracy. You are doing no-one any service by continuously putting unverifiable information on the page. You definitely know the TG stuff and you are helpful in expanding the entries on his books, but the continuous reverts to unsourced information is making the bio page worse. Please read the policies, they will help you become a better contributor. And get the chip off of your shoulder, I find it annoying. WLU 14:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Taken from the Terry Goodkind talk
As for "who "I" am", I'm well known, All anyone has to do is to look on any Goodkind website and find ALL my personal information, unlike you WUL who is specifically trying to hide your true identity for reasons we both know. Just because you live in Canada doesn't mean you can't be tracked. Mystar 19:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey Mystar, I know it won't do any good, but it's just so much fun to rip holes in your logic. Sorry, 'logic'. For someone who spends so much time reading books by an avowed objectivist, you really do not argue well. Did you ever look up ad hominem? Most of your arguments involve ad hominem attacks, rather than actual thought. What I just did could be seen as ad hominem as well, if it weren't for the fact that, well, it's pretty much true, I've never seen you use any reason for yor edits aside from "I want it that way". Of course, as usual, your first egregious error is assuming that somehow knowing who I am in any way strengthen or undercut the points I make. Who I am may influence why I choose to argue, but does not alter how I do so. That is, it influences my intentions, but not the actual content of my reasoning. I've made this point before, it seems to go over your head. Second, I don't actually know why I'm hiding my identity, could you tell me why? I'm curious what your reasoning is, but I'm assuming that you have some in the first place. Presumably my error. My biggest reason at this point is because you seem like enough of a spaz to dump a bunch of spam in my account or something like that. Third, do you think that somehow pointing out that I'm from Canada in any way intimidates me or would make me stop disagreeing with you? I don't get it. Oh, hold on, you've narrowed down your chances of finding me from one in six billion, to one in 30 million. Good job. Currently, based on pure numbers, you now have a 0.00000003% chance of finding me by accosting random Canadians one by one. I'll narrow it down for you, my userid is based on the university I attend. Now the odds are roughly one in a thousand, assuming you figure it out. So, what gave me away? Was it the spelling? The entry on SSHRC? Or the Video On Trial edit? Gosh, I'll probably never know. Good thing I don't care and it doesn't matter. What'll happen if you find me by the way? Will you kill me, dance about on my corpse? Cannibalism? Slowly destroy the things I love, one by one? Tickle me with your beard? It doesn't matter who I am, it's what I say, this is why my edits generally get reverted by you alone, while there are people lining up to reverse what you do. My changes are justified, referenced, and make sense while yours are pure agenda.
As always, I look forward to your reply with great amusement. WLU 01:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey Mystar, I just edited an entry on House, so now you know what my favorite TV show is. Geez, maybe I shouldn't have, because now you can use it against me. Guess I'll have to erase my userid and hide, in case you find me. You know, with your frightening logic and keen mind. WLU 00:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)