Jump to content

User talk:Tealwisp

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daniel Case (talk | contribs) at 15:07, 15 March 2009 (→Pkrdoctor: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If I left a comment on your talk page, you can respond to me here or there, but I'll get the big banner if you respond here. I will respond to comments left here with a talkback tag in most cases.

Eric Cartman article fictional categories

Here's my reasoning for why I removed those three categories from said article (which I've also posted on that article's discussion page here. I'm not exactly aware of how inclusive these categories are allowed to be, so if they must go back, I understand. Thanks.

1) Is he really a murderer? Yes, he once killed Kenny (by accident, with a frying pan) while under the influence of Ritalin. And we all know about what used to happen to Kenny each week. He killed the "messenger boy" in a hallucinatory flashback...so does that really count? And then there's the whole Scott Tenorman deal. Technically, he didn't commit the murder. Yes, in reality he would consequentially be held liable somehow...but it's South Park, not reality. And yes, he always suggests to the other boys about murdering Kyle, and murdering his mom, but has he ever done it? Nope. The article even mentions a quote from Trey Parker about how Cartman is capable of anything "short of murder".

2) Criminal? Well, I don't see it that way. Common mischief, maybe. And the more serious acts he commits are, like I mentioned, handled in such a way within the South Park universe that they never have any serious legal consequence. The times they do (such as going to juvenile hall for the "hate crime" on Token) are, to me, spoofs of the overreactions we sometimes have to certain crimes.

3) The whole frozen in ice thing is technically true, but it happened in one episode. The instance doesn't play an integral part to knowing about anything else that occurs in other episodes, unlike, say, it being an important thing to know about Frey in Futurama. If you include this, you might as well create categories such as "Fictional characters who have been in a coma", "...fell off a roof", "...been to outer space", "...Christian band members", "...little league baseball players", etc.

- SoSaysChappy (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the frozen thing can be taken out with no problem. The criminal thing is easily applied, as Cartman is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder (scott tenorman), and about the murder, I guess it's admissable that conspiracy doesn't technically count. Oh, and more about the criminal thing, the false police reports he would have fiiled when he was "psychic." I suppose you can remove the murder thingif you really want to, but if other users call for its restoration, I suggest we leave it. Tealwisp (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yezidi, edit dispute.

The other editor has not responded to my arguments. I however cannot assume that she agrees to what I have written. On the contrary the last message that she sent on the subject was a confirmation of her stand. Perhaps life's other issues are more pressing for her. I am not going ahead on my own and making any changes to the article unless she agrees to the draft. Please do not consider this issue closed. For the moment it is simmering on the back-burner, waiting for the other editor to examin my arguments.


Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no new arguments... what did you want me to comment on? I'm not being deliberately difficult here, I just don't understand. I also don't understand how you can credit those sources as reliable. Ogress smash! 11:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Eric Cartman

Oh, just a fan of the show, and lots of the articles for the characters are in bad shape. And it's not just Cartman, I'm hoping to improve all of them (on my user page I've shown which ones I've already done significant work to), but, I'm busy (aren't we all?) and it's going to take some time. Once I finish with the character pages I hope to move on to other articles related to the show. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know the feeling; most of the excess and poorly constructed info I reverted or edited or trimmed, etc. is already gradually being added back, and I do my best to keep the articles respectable. As I received your first message, I was on my user page in the process of clarifying what kind of edits I was making to SP character pages, and since then I have finished. Take a look if you like. Thanks for the support! - SoSaysChappy (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification

I'm reading over Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/suggestions, and while there are definitely issues amongst the others commenting, I doesn't appear that you're following the letter, much less the spirit, of what is suggested in terms of mediator behaviour/interaction.

Also, both "sides" have to agree to mediation before a case may be "opened" from what I understand. Do you believe that has happened?

Clarification on all points would be welcome. - jc37 10:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying, first, to find out exactly what the conflict is. If you wish to join as a mediator, you are welcome, unless you are involved with the discussion. Also, I was about to take a straw poll on whether we should close mediation or not. There is more than one user who has expressed desire to discuss the issue, and a number more are participating. Only one editor has refused mediation, though one more does not wish for discussion to continue at all, and no "sides" have been declared. Tealwisp (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tealwisp, I appreciate your efforts to mediate, but I fear they could be hampered by your own reactions. I don't mean to be hostile or to attack you, but labeling several parties pejoratively as "you lot" is not particularly constructive in my view, and tarnishes your reputation as a mediator.
As for "exactly what the conflict is", I'm as in the dark as you. The initial point of contention at the article was whether synthesis from primary sources should be permitted. Per Wikipedia guidelines, it should not. There's little or nothing to mediate on this point. The editor who after several days on Wikipedia knows Wikipedia well enough to take the issue to multiple noticeboards, from OR to RS to AN/I to 3RR, should also understand the difference between the various types of reliable sources. If s/he does not, or does not wish to learn, perhaps mentoring would be more appropriate than mediation. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the barnstar, and for being so willing to reach a conclusion in the dispute. Computerjoe's talk 10:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pkrdoctor

See if the name change request is still up at WP:CHU. If not, ask a bureaucrat if they can help you. Daniel Case (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tealwisp&oldid=277415802"