User talk:WLU/Me-Mystar conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Personal commentary 2 User notice: temporary 3RR block 3 Regarding reversions[1] made on October 1, 2006 to Terry Goodkind 4 My reply to Mystar, and his reply 5 Request for Mediation 6 Terry Goodkind mediation 7 My own dubious behaviour 7.1 Worst and most uncivil edit 8 Arbitration - Section moved from User_talk:mystar to my own user page 8.1 Reply by Mystar on Talk:Sword_of_Truth 8.1.1 Criticism and themes 9 Section moved from Mystar's talk page 10 Mystar's message from user page 10.1 My reply 11 Your case 12 Your mediation case 13 Further WLU-mystar 14 Reply 15 The reason the request died 16 More 17 WLU's personal attacks redux 18 Alright then.... 19 Mystar 20 please stop your personal attacks

[edit] Personal commentary

Please don't continue to make comments like this or this to Mystar or any other user. The first veers a bit close to a personal attack, and the general tone of both these and some of your other comments is unnecessarily incivil. I realize that there are substantial ongoing issues, but engaging in a back-and-forth that can appear taunting will not solve those issues in a manner appropriate to Wikipedia. You may feel provoked, particularly by veiled threats like that regarding your location, but keep in mind that personal commentary on other users is discouraged regardless of their past conduct. As a general rule, being right on substantive matters does not excuse incivil expressions of that rightness. The various forms of dispute resolution are preferable to antagonistic exchanges, and we'll all be better served if you turn to them rather than continuing a barbed discussion. Please note that this has nothing to do with your article edits and nothing to do with the arguments you make about content; it is entirely about communication with other editors. Thanks for any help you can provide. Brendan Moody 05:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. It was getting boring anyway. WLU 11:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Snide commets are unproductive. I have to try hard not to do it myself (with an instance or two of me failing in that) but doing so only adds to the cycle. In the interest of my sanity I've elected to simply stop interacting with Mystar, I would recommend you also take a break. NeoFreak 17:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a break from snideness and stick with editing. Thanks for your advice over the past couple weeks BTW. WLU 19:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course. I'm not going to stop editing either and neither should you or anyone that wants to contribute to wikipedia first and foremost. Cheers. NeoFreak 20:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

My IP address, which is 64.230.0.107 The name of the blocking admin is William M. Connolley The reason I was blocked is: 3rr on Terry Goodkind

Dear Mr. Connolley,

I do not believe that my actions justify a block. My reversions in my opinion, are good faith edits.

Yes indeed. The trouble is everyone believes this. Nonetheless, you are required to stick within 3RR, no matter how good your faith might be William M. Connolley 14:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but can you or anyone review a comparison of our contributions for an opinion on these things? We've been waiting since August for a mediation decision. WLU 14:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather not get involved in content in things I know nothing about. Your best bet is to find other people who *are* interested via WP:RFC perhaps William M. Connolley 15:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

'S a good idea. I'll pursue it, thanks for the advice. WLU 16:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The page that I am blocked regarding has been a source of much contention between myself, Mystar, and numerous other editors. I think that Mystar's edits are consistently in bad faith, seeking to add information about the subject (Terry Goodkind) which is inaccurate and improperly (publication numbers), is essentially the same as having the subject himself (Terry Gookdind) edit the page (Mystar has stated several times that he is very close to Mr. Goodkind), and poorly written (the reverts he made were to a series of quotes Mr. Goodkind made in interviews, in which he discusses his own novels, stating essentially the same information that was already in the article, accurately summarized and much shorter). Mystar also consistently accuses others of bad faith and fails to justify his edits. Please see Talk: Terry Goodkind and Wikipedia:General complaints, the latter falls under Bonehead Wikipedians entry, #30 I believe. The current revision that Mystar is undergoing undoes months of work by several wikipeidans to produce an article that is not overly long and biased towards Mr. Goodkind's voice. In an effort to avoid him cluttering up the page, I created a new page where he could add these themes. Instead, he reverted the page back to his original version (actually someone else's version that added the unnecessary information - suspiciously I think, as it added exactly the information that Mystar originally wanted included in the page, almost verbatim, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High D'Haran where Mystar may have appealed to external forums for non-regular contributors to edit wikipedia pages).

Also of note is the Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Terry Goodkind, and note my contributions to the plot summary of Chainfire, an effort to make it more general and accessible to the general reader, which Mystar reverted to a more complicated and specific version which is less accessible.

I am not completely innocent, I have insulted Mystar before and regularly check his contributions to make sure they are accurate. Still, I believe this block is unjustified.

Thanks,

WLU 12:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The extending issue here is that you yourself have admitted to never having read Terry Goodkind's novels, yet you continue to make edits that change the content of the article, not just the grammar or word usage. If you have not read the novels, you are not qualified to change the content of articles, only to edit for grammar and spelling consistancy. Omnilord 20:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Not true, I read Wizard's First Rule and disliked it. However, if you look at the few edits I have made in the SoT series proper, it was the plot intro of Chainfire in an effort to make it more accessible to the general reader - I took out reference to subtractive magic, leaving it just 'magic' as no-one except a reader of the series know's what subtractive magic is, but just magic is understandable. I did similar changes to simplify. I didn't touch the summary itself because I can't legitimately contribute, but I am able to shorten and simplify to the point where a non-reader (myself) understands it without having to refer to the book itself or external references. WLU 21:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I am in no way defending Mystar. I am just telling it how it is. He is one of the most well versed individuals when it comes to the Sword of Truth series irregardless of how close his ties are to the author. In fact, because of his close ties to the author, he has a better standing to know where there are errors in the articles, and point them out. With that you should not be challenging every little edit he makes, but trying to guide him to fit his contributions into an acceptable format. This means not wholesale deleting something he adds just because he doesn't know where the citation is, but instead helping him find the citation. This is a constructive project for which you're actions are destructive. I am having a very similar conversation with mystar at this moment. Omnilord 20:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

He's one of the most well-versed, but also closest to the author himself, and it is to the point where it's like having the author himself editing his own bio page - a wikipedia no-no. Also, he uses the author's own website as references and source material. Sometimes it's OK, when it's direct info about the author and his life, but other times it's a conflict of interest - what the books mean, their themes, etc. Also, I justify my edits and give reasons for what I do. Mystar rarely does. WLU 21:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's only a no-no when the subject of the bio page is not correcting blatantly incorrect information. This has been the nature of mystar's edits. Yes, he goes overboard at times, but that's where my comment on guiding the correct information he is able to pull up into the correct format comes from; helping to find sources for what he is trying to add, etc. rather than complaining like you have to clean up a mess, treat it like a clay sculpture coming together and mystar is just adding raw clay to be molded. Omnilord 22:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Now he's adding to the Influences and themes section, a major source of contention. Mystar and TG do not completely own the themes of the novels, they are aspects that are open to interpretation, such as [this] and [this] and [this] and [this] and [this] and [this], which all point to a distasteful inclusion of sexual sadism and violence in the novels. I'll add them to balance out the positive, chest-thumping that TG/Mystar have added to the sections. WLU 23:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing balancing about adding those, just creating a more vitriol environment using sheer biased opinions on something they either know nothing about or refuse to acknowledge. If you are going to have an article on the Themes and Influences you cannot deny what the author says about it because no one else is going to know what has influenced them. As for themes, Terry Goodkind has deliberately incorperated themes in his novels and whether others perceive more themes or not is secondary, albeit there is an undercurrent of sadism, but not from the heroes.

Those people are right to loath evil behavior, but they are mistaken in a very slanderous way: Terry himself is not advocating such behavior, he is condemning it by portraying such behavior only in the villainous characters. Not one of those pages you link makes that distinction. And there in lies the distinguishing factor that lays the truth of the matter bare: they fear Terry's moral clarity and his ability to portray vile villains and the heroes who overcome the evil of those villains. Just because the world Terry has created is a fantasy world does not mean he limits himself to unrealistic occurances. Rape, murder, torture and other vile acts are perpetrated daily in the real world by real villains. Terry is just showing the depth of how evil villains truly can be so his heroes can properly be gauged by the evils they overcome.

When this truth is understood, those articles you link are cast in a very dark light. The purpose of such articles is not to bring the truth gleeming into the light, but to subject a figure of moral clarity to the darkness. They attempt to distance people from reading these novels on the premise that they are about evil actions. They attempt to cast a light of perversion over the series and the author because they fear the evil actions describe. What they don't do is describe the context in which such evil actions come about in the books; that the villains are evil in a realistic way.

What they fail to recognize is that the villains who perpetrate the sexual sadism, the initiation of careless violence, and all the other evil actions are defeated in the struggle by the heroes who uphold morality and the good things in life. Omnilord 00:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll edit the page, then comment on what I say. It took me 10 minutes of searching on google to find all these articles, which points to the idea that other people have ideas about the sexual and sadistic aspects of the books. WLU 12:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What I find most confusing is the fact that you are so vehement about this on Goodkind, yet you ignore the very same proclivity on Martin and Bakker. Such content is even worst at time in their books, you edit their pages, yet we do not see you making any such assertions there? You cannot have your cake and eat it too WLU.

Worse, not worst. If you can find links to articles that support TG's opinion, that don't come from TG, feel free to include them. I've never edited anything by Bakker. The stuff on Martin's page is taken from sources external to Martin's own webpage, except for the 6th footnote (as I write this), as compared to the Goodkind bio, which has 5 sources that refer to interviews or webpages by/about TG, including www.terrygoodkind.net yours, now in the archive Mystar. If you can find sources that are critical of Martin, feel free to include them. WLU 12:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You are indeed making false assumptions and we are incapable of using your point as you have openly admitted to not reading the series. First you break your word you gave. Your words were proof, ANY proof" that I had spoken with an Admin. I gave you the admins name. That constitutes as proof., then you post a blog wreaking of POV and openly aggressively bashing Goodkind's work, knowing better, you suggest that it be used, stating "that has been my experience with Goodkind", then you openly make the assertion that you've not read Goodkind, Now you state you have read Goodkind. What are we to believe? You cannot such contradictions. Breaking your word and half-truths don't work. Please edit in Good Faith. We can work togather for the betterment of Wikipedia--Mystar 01:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

1. The page is about TG, not his work, so technically I don't have to have read it. I'm not using my own words, I'm sourcing from external pages, therefore referenced.
2. Your point about me breaking my word is tiresome, irrelevant and frankly laughable, and won't prevent me from editing the page further. I suggest not trusting me in the future, that might be best.
3. I won't be editing the novel pages, just the bio page.

WLU 12:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Lastly, I would ask that if you cannot be constructive in your contributions or knowledgeable in the subject matter (read the novels), please refrain from making edits. Thank you. Omnilord 20:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not editing the novel pages, and I've repeatedly said so. The only thing I'm working at is the biopage, which I have just as much right to edit as anyone. I haven't touched any pages that I remember except Chainfire, and I did that a couple times only, legitimate edits in my mind, but contested by Mystar. My edit resulted in the plot intro of:

Richard awakes to find his wife Kahlan missing. While trying to rally his supporters to begin a search, Richard discovers he is the only living person who remembers her. While seeking Kahlan, he finds out that a dark magic that has affected the memories of the people of D'Hara.

While Mystar's replacement was:

During a raid on his camp, Richard is seriously wounded and now Nicci must use subtractive magic in order to save him. Richard awakens to find his wife Kahlan The Mother Confessor, missing and soon realizes that he is the only person alive who remembers Kahlan. As he begins to search for her, he learns that he is also hunted by a beast created by Jagang's sisters of the dark. Richard must travel the land in order to find out the truth.

It proceeds from there, but actually is decent now, not worth fighting over. WLU 21:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My reply to Mystar, and his reply

This has nothing to do with the Wikiproject SoT except the fact that Terry Goodkind wrote the books. The page that Mystar is referring to is the TG biopage, which has very little info on it regarding the SoT except that he wrote it, and his influences in the series. The edits Mystar is talking about is a revert an unknown user made to basically a single section which doubled the length of the article essentially by adding in a large set of quotations from a bunch of TG interviews, all basically saying the same thing. I have added a link to the page itself which takes the reader to a new (or potentially new) page which is entitled 'Influences and Themes(Sword of Truth)', which is a more appropriate venue, in my mind.

What Mystar disingenuously leaves out is that the page has been involved in a lengthy set of edits and discussion between myself, him, and several other contributors. What existed yesterday was the result of this long process - the article was short, tight, NPOV and didn't sound like it was written TG himself. As Mystar reverted it, it was a jumble of quotes which said the same thing as what is currently in the Influences and themes section. As I write this, after reverting again, it says:

"Terry Goodkind has been largely influenced by the books of Ayn Rand and is a strong supporter of her works and of Objectivist philosophy. While he admits to writing in the fantasy genre, he perceives his novels to be more than just traditional fantasy due to their focus on philosophical and human theme"

The things Mystar wishes to include can be found in the first version of the 'Influences and Themes(Sword of Truth)' page, which I created, and there I moved the information that Mystar wishes to be included. As I realize my bias and don't really care that much about it, I'm not going to bother editing or adding content to the page, I leave that to others who are more interested.

Also of interest is the [for mediation]. I am not jumping into the middle of this, I am maintaining the page as it was decided by several editors. To date, no one except myself and Mystar have weighed in on the issue since the biopage was more-or-less finalized over the last couple weeks.

Further, as I think most people who have had to interact with Mystar would agree, he is an intolerant editor at best. He rarely provides reasons for his editing, aside from "I know Terry, he'd want it this way" or "That's just the way it is". He has frequently presented many issues of the biopage in particular as consensus, agreed upon and complete, prematurely. Check through the history of the talk page. I can't claim to be the perfect editor, but I believe that over time I have improved and expanded beyond the TG page and in incidents where others have disagreed with me and provided reasons, I have acquiesed and accepted the changes as improvements.

Good luck working on the SoT Wikiproject all, I have absolutely no doubt that it will be fruitful for anyone who agrees with Mystar. For everyone else, I'm sure you'll find it as frustrating as everyone else that's had to work with him. I won't be working on the project as I haven't read the books and therefore can't reasonably be expected to add substantive content. WLU 02:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Rather than get into a dick measuring contest, this user has for some reason acted in bad faith and is only focused on attacking my work. I will point out that as I have so stated WLU is unaware of the series ergo has nothing add to the pages. The Goodkind bio page always has been included in the project. I edited it to make it clearer for her. Adding theme content et al is justified as we see on several other authors’ bio pages including George R R Martin, which WLU is acuity aware of, as she has been working on that very topic.

Again, I am doing my best to work with in the rules and as a user still becoming familiar with this media; I am going to make mistakes, thus my consistent discussion with the admins. As anyone can read my edits have been good ones as stated by parties involved. For the record, the Bio page is neither finalized nor done. Again I ask that WLU who has more than stated her dislike for the author, even though she admits never having read his works, rather allowing others to think and make up her mind for her about said author, she feels she is still qualified to edit one what he has said with regard to his work and its content. A contradiction if ever I've heard one.

My point being We/I are hard at work on this project and we can make it into a top notch Wikiproud page! We simply need people like WLU to take their personal war elsewhere. (by Mystar)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Terry Goodkind. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] 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)

Wow, you already did just a minute before I left you this message. Thanks for the quick response and for having the page on your watchlist! : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 16:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My own dubious behaviour

Me being a bit passive-aggressive

me making a personal attack

I accuse Mystar of having a chip on his shoulder

Me being mean

Here I belittle Mystar's reasoning powers and call him a spaz

Me making fun of Mystar

another personal attack on Mystar

general unpleasantness

just pissed off

proof re: bastique thing

suggest ignoring Mystar

You could call this one passive aggressive

More

called it babble, not real nice

Here I call Mystar a bad editor

I sorta call Mystar stupid

Here I take a couple cheap-shots at his relationship with Terry Goodkind

Call him a crappy editor

Insult his spelling

[edit] Worst and most uncivil edit

Here

[edit] Arbitration - Section moved from User_talk:mystar to my own user page

Mystar:

What I'm posting on your talk page are not rantings, they are the beginnings of a case for arbitration which could get you banned from editing wikipedia. These are points where you have violated policy. Your continued editing without changing your interactions with myself at least, could get you kicked off. Each diff that you removed was one point where I at least found your conduct objectionable. Your editing of another user's comments (i.e. mine) on a talk page because you do not agree with what is being said is not sensible, reasonable, or good practices. I should not have to revert a talk page.

Anyway, all that being said, I'm pursuing arbitration.

Other comments:

[edit] Reply by Mystar on Talk:Sword_of_Truth

• Notes from past arguments on this crapola....
• To WLU: Anything on a blog is not a reputable source (See Wikipedia:Reliable Sources). In addition, anything that TG may have said to any of his fans really is a completely trivial piece of information, and as such, it is not of an encyclopedic nature.
• Finally, to Mystar: Please stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you of vandalism (Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism and specifically the section entitled What vandalism is not). I've been contributing to this page for months now, and I have yet to see one instance of true vandalism by a regular contributor.

As always, lets all be civil here. Thanks, Runch 23:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Terry is not a sadist, don't make him out to be one just because he is able to create evil villains who can portray evil traits (IE sadism, violence, sexual-misconduct). If you want to address this, keep it local to the books/series, and don't make it sound like you are labelling the author with the same sweeping judgement. We can work on making it read appropriately in the appropriate article(s). Omnilord 22:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Again we seek creditable sources...professional and NOT POV driven or attacks simply because the bloger feel threatened by Goodkind's success Mystar 00:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

None of the sources are blogs. Which do you consider a blog?

If the author's opinions are not valid, then they should be removed from his bio page. I'm in favour of leaving them up, and including the opinion piece in the section below/on the SoT page.

I never said TG was a sadist (or I may have, but I am not trying to include that here), I included a section which discusses, in part, the sadistic elements of the series. Which is why I followed Omnilord's suggestion and put this up on the SoT page instead of the TG page - this is the page about the novels, not the author.

The reviews are not on blogs, they are on review websites. Most of it could be probably reduced to the infinity review and the Scifi review, along with the response from TG about the abusive relationship, which gives the section purpose rather than making it some random, headline-grabbing element.

Here's the section again in case you wanted to look at it for concrete examples. Please give me concrete examples, as labelling everything as incorrect doesn't let me understand your reasoning.

[edit] Criticism and themes

The Goodkind's sole body of work to date, the Sword of Truth series, has received both criticism and acclaim.^[1] Reviewers discuss the awkward and repetetive prose^[2], and also the extremity of the sexual sadism^[3][4] and violence^[5] of the series. However, critics have also noted improvement in his writing over the development of the series^[5], his ability to construct a detailed and creative world, and his writing of heroic characters with a powerful sense of morality^{[citation needed]}. Goodkind himself has defended his inclusion of items such as torture, stating that (regarding Wizard's First Rule) his purpose was to highlight the helplessness, degredation and irrationality of an abusive relationship, not to shock or disgust^[6].

1. ^ Review at www.sfreviews.net
2. ^ Review at www.flakmag.com
3. ^ Review at christianfantasy.net
4. ^ Review at www.inchoatus.com
5. ^ ^{a b} Review at www.infinityplus.co.uk
6. ^ Interview at a Virginia booksigning

[edit] Section moved from Mystar's talk page

Personal attack:

here here here here here this one's debatable called someone a nazi this one's debatable also here's one here's an attack on another user's editing and writing skills here's one where he wants to find out who I am more conspiracy stuff another one wants my actual identity here's another one where he wants to know who I am, plus conspiracy stuff stuff more stuff on my offline identity attack on another user another one Accusation of bad faith, blatant error about the sources

I'm reporting you and requesting comments. Quit wikistalking me and editing just to piss me off.

Also your pestering, passive-aggresive cheapshot comments here here here here here here here here here here here here here this is one of the weird conspiracy theory/everyone hates Terry Goodkind moments here's another one cheap shot irritating comment provocation irritating post cheap shot inciting comments

And here is one where you remove one of my links from the page and here is another section where you either accidentally or on purpose edited in the middle of a link that proved my point.

Also irritating me is the tendency to proclaim an issue prematurely closed: here this one's an empty threat here's a promise for more links here's one where on a very contended page he edits and promises a link, wiithout providing it right away accusing someone of using sockpuppets nominating an article for deleiton just after it was created by myself more promised proof a series of bizzare edits that don't make sense but do gut any chance I have of making an actual point.

This is your second warning and after this it moves on to requests for comments from other users. Feel free to gather the same information on me. WLU 00:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

[edit] Mystar's message from user page

How droll. 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. You continue to own pages where people constantly have to go behind you and fix your misinformation. 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. Again I'm asking you to stop your incessant edit warring and page owning. 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. 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. 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. 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. Providing correct and pertinent information is not a frivolous endeavor. As I have said in the past. People use Wikipedia as research for their well-being and better health ....not just for facts. You need to behave and take this 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. Mystar 16:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My 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 Wikipedia.

>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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia as research for their well-being and better health ....not just for facts.

Wikipedia (and research in general) should be a collection of facts. Specific research should also include interpretation, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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. Wikipedia 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)

>If you have so precious little time on your hands and you have other things you want to edit more, or other things in youre life you wish to do, what on earth is possessing you to continue with your editing wars? Do you get a perverse enjoyment out of causing trouble? If you have things that you would prefer to be doing, then please, by all means, go do them and leave us be, I think it would be better for everyone involved. Omnilord 22:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your case

Would you mind if I mediated your mediation cabal case? WikieZach| talk 05:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I would not mind, please go ahead. WLU 15:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your mediation case

Would you like to mediate your case? WikieZach| talk 04:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought I already answered this, unless I don't understand what you're asking... I am fine with mediating the case, has the other party agreed? WLU 13:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further WLU-mystar

As the mediator in the WLU-Mystar case, would you like to bring it to the Mediation Committee? WikieZach| talk 22:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Again apologies for not replying sooner, I'm having trouble keeping track of the talk pages people are replying on. I think I would. I just read the MC page and don't really understand the difference between, say, you mediating the case, and someone else (or several someones? The mediation committee?) doing so. So as far as I know, yes I would like my case brought before the MC. WLU 20:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

It's been closed. WikieZach| talk 22:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The reason the request died

For over a week nothing was posted on the request page and only one of the two parties was actually in direct-contact with me (an unfair thing). Therefore, I closed it. It's not your fault. Have a happy ThanksGivHanakaChriKwanzadan! WikieZach| talk 00:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More

[edit] WLU's personal attacks redux

More wikistalking —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WLU (talk • contribs) 18:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

First off this interview? Its been posted many times. so... you don't like it ~shrugs~ so what... we personally love it. Secondly calling anyone a moron, let alone a world renown New York Times #1 best selling author is POV, and an attack meant to provoke a flame war and is unacceptable behavior. It violates Wiki policy WP:NP Namely with regard to you calling anyone let alone Terry Goodkind a Moron. While I grin at your inability to be civil and post with honor, it just proves my point. You cannot act in a mature but have to attempt to slant peoples views not letting them think for themselves. No you must slander someone as a weak attempt to validate an opinion you formed while having no actual knowledge of the content of the series. You obviously feel that in order to make yourself feel good about your lack of abilities, you must lower yourself to personal attacks and name-calling. Rather than allowing people to either approve or disapprove on their own. Tells us a great deal about you. You dislike the series or Goodkind cool I've no problem with that at all. You calling Goodkind and his works bad after openly admitting that you have never even read them shows the problem. That is your opinion, HOWEVER you are not above Wiki-policy of No Personal attacks and committing Libel and slander on her user page or any other page. RegardsMystar 02:26, 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)

Do either of you guys want to end this invective-filled wrestling match you're in or do you think it serves some useful purpose to Wikipedia? Agree to (strongly) disagree or take it outside, I say. Thanks for all you've done to improve the wiki. Wishing you both well, Figma 04:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree Figma. I'm simply responding to his attacks...again...

Thanks for using the male pronoun, it's appreciated. WLU

Also as you can see at the very top of this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks

This page in a nutshell: Comment on content, not on the contributor.

Also see WP:CIV But also WP:EQ

See this part of the page? "Don't ignore questions. If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate."

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.

Yeah, we're not talking about a talk page, we're talking about a user page, where I talk about myself. Not a talk page. WLU

Most notably is WP:UP What can I not have on my user page? Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia

Note the extensive part of that. The bit you aren't too fond of is four words, if you count the possessive as a word. I could add "I think" to the sentence if you'd like, that'd still be 6 words only, or pretty it up some other way. According to the policy I really should take it down as you've spent far more time carping on my user page than you have actually editing WP for the past couple days. And also, it is related to Wikipedia, it's the reason I'm involved in the TG bio page, so technically it probably could stay up with a bit of tinkering. WLU

"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,[1] Wikipedia 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".

See my last comment. And you seem to be the only one bothered by it, perhaps barring Figma, but let's leave her out of it. And it may be a him, I'm not really sure. Apologies to Figma if he/she is still watching for gender oopsies. But what I'm getting at is that this is interrupting the work of a community of one - you. And if you don't bother watching my user page, it wouldn't even do that. So I've got a solution, click the unwatch button at the top of the page after reading this, and go edit the SOT pages. Soooooooo MANY of them read like they were written by 14 year olds. WLU

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.

For someone who doesn't seem to care what my opinion of the man is, you sure dedicate an awful lot of time to discussing it on my talk page. And I hardly think one comment on my user page about Terry Goodkind is character assassination, particularly when all I'm doing is expressing my opinion. I'll alter it so character assassination is out of the question. And clearly I have a duty to do so, since my words can kill, I should be even more wary of just throwing opinions around. Hopefully it won't cause his worldwide status as a bestseller to tank.

I'm simply asking that you change your wording and bring it in line with Good Faith Editing and Wiki standards. Mystar 17:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I shall change my wording as you kindly request. Thanks again for referring to me as male. Incidentally, are you using a spell checker before you post replies on my talk page? The typos have really decreased. Kudos, I hope it was due to my influence but I really doubt I can take the credit. One last thing - your continued alteration of the headings really smack of bad faith and incivility, as do your edit summaries in general. WLU 19:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

~chuckles~... indeed I see your steller maturity shining as ever... I wish I had an award for you...perhaps the poster child for incivility... Did I refer to you as a man, my mistake as we both know the truth of it. I prefer honerable and honest intent. Sad you don'tMystar 01:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What ho! You besmirch mine honour yet again! But, but, I thought you were kidding the first time, just making a lame joke the second, but the third, it seems you are serious (if uncreative)!

You're right sirrah, let us settle this once and for all! Choose your weapon!! Pistols at dawn? Rapiers? Bare-knucle brawling? Perhaps jousting on hairy dinosaurs! A slap fight! A tickle fight?

Nay, nay, we must's ends this in the true manner of its beginning! A contest of moral clarity! Let us slaughter unarmed women and helpless babies, salting the earth behind us and torturing the menfolk! Whoever stops first obviously has less moral clarity, and is thus the loser, their life, forefit! They must abdicate their fortune, abandon their womenfolk to the winner and instantly fling themselves from a bridge to a wide, flowing river, where they will instantly drown, instantly. Perhaps a staring contest, with the most raptor-like eyes being the winner!

Dude, this is so lame. Stay away from my edits, stop wikistalking me and quit checking up on my contributions. This whole thing is moderately entertaining, and I love shredding your comments on my talk page, but it's gotten old and you haven't come up with anything new. In case you aren't getting this, allow me to clarify:

You bore and inconvenience me.

WLU

[edit] Alright then....

I'm butting out! Good luck, lads. Figma 19:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mystar

• Yeah but there is a difference between H.G. Wells and this not only that but this isn't the only penname he uses there are plenty of others he's got and we should use his real name like the H.G. Wells article. 216.174.135.175 18:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)jamhaw

And I quote... "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated". {{WP:VANDAL}} You my dear are not the sole arbiter of what is or isn't acceptable. Simply because you do not care for an opinion that is placed addressing the subject mater is not fodder for you to start another reverting binge. The fact that you may not like jamhaw’s wording or point is not relevant. What is relevant is that jamhaw posted where it was applicable, and gave an offering of opinion/thought, which is as stated in Wiki policy jamhaw’s right. It in no way falls into the category of vandalism. What does smack of vandalism is your removal of material aimed as improving Wikipedia. Now were that posted on the actual face page, bio page etc it would not be relevant and should be removed, but as you can see that was not the case. Mystar 05:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

ALso, didn't realize I wasn't signed in at the time...silly lil ole me! puters are such fickle critters....Mystar 05:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] please stop your personal attacks

{{WP:RPA}} I would kindly (again) ask that you coment on a topic or issue and stop calling me or others names. It is both disruptive and offensive to others. Not to mention it gives Wikipedia a bad name. Of note are "Personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia. Although users can ignore such attacks, repeat offenders may be banned". Really the whole page will be of great help for you. You can see it can be helpful in helping you adjust your behaviour of repeaded personal tounts and attacks. Thank you Mystar 14:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

And {WP:COOL}} are great rescorces to help

You mean taunts. Read up on arbtration.

WLU 18:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

With regards to your comments on User talk:Mystar: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Mystar 20:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)