User talk:Ramdrake

It is currently 05:27 where I am

Comment at Talk:Chiropractic

Thanks for the input, I've added a summary of the warnings recently given to this editor, could you comment on the talkpage on if you think these were unclear or not strongly-worded enough? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Richard Lynn

The original research needs to come out. I will revert back one time, but I will not edit war over this. In the two paragraphs I deleted there was nothing worth saving.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Request

Ramdrake, if I ask really really nicely, would you be willing to remove Jagz's talkpage from your watchlist? Or at least, refrain from posting there for awhile? You do have a point about what Jagz was doing, but it's probably best if administrators handle things for now. Lots of admins are watching his page now, so action from you is probably not required. And if you do see something that we miss, you are welcome to bring it to an admin's talkpage (such as myself or MastCell) so that we can address it. Would that work for you? --Elonka 19:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

... for bringing the discussion to a close on Elonka's page. I have to admit that I did not seriously entertain the possibility that any other administrator would have been willing to act as Jagz's mentor. Perhaps Elonka will think twice next time before writing n'importe quoi. A bientot, Mathsci (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

nor

I just made three proposals at WP:NOR - feel free to comment, Slrubenstein | Talk 01:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC

Thanks, that was odd. I think I fixed it, can you double-check? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Fancruft

Thanks for the offer. If those articles are an area of interest for you - feel free, but as I reviewed the previous seasons it does appear that the articles tend to shape up into decent articles over time. I just may have begun too aggressive attempt to clean up too soon to actually accomplish anything. However, if the IP's start to attempt to use the talk page to pretend some type of consensus exists for fancruft, I will let you know! -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The definition of fancruft is loose and can't be applied here, as both "trivia" facts are closely related to the article. Similar happenings at the beginning and the end of the episode is an indication of writing style - notice that I'm not committing WP:SYNTH here in any way, but "let[ting] the reader draw their own conclusions" by putting the two facts together. As for Butters being referred to as gay - it's part of what this episode contributes as far as continuity goes. Please don't mutilate articles just for the sake of following rules - eventually, WP is there for the reader and not for the editor. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 09:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to scrub the articles of OR, speculation, trivia too, all help is welcome! Alastairward (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You're (deliberately?) ignoring my points again, which only proves me right on these particular issues. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Similar happenings at the beginning and the end of the episode is an indication of writing style. Please supply a third-party reference that says this in relation to South Park episodes. Until you do, according to ur policies, this is OR. If the only thing the episode contributes to the continuity of the story is the factoid that Buttters gets called "gay", then we're in sorry shape. Why doesn't this contribute anything in any other way? About there being Goth students in the school? About the lack of proper teaching abilities of their professor? The fact that Butters gets called "gay" for the nth time is in fact trivia.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the justification behind me adding this to the article - nowhere within the article text have I suggested the "sin of synth" by expressing this opinion. There's nothing wrong in putting these two together and letting the reader do their own "2+2" as far as the meaning of this goes. It's a valid point, why are you being stubborn for nothing? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

But you've got to realize that not every single detail has some kind of hidden meaning? What is, for example, the difference between the children playing Call of Duty: World at War (say, Endwar) versus any other type of violent military computer-based game? What is the difference between Butters being called "gay" versus any other kind of insult the other kids throw at him? If he'd been called "fat", would you be counting the number of episodes he's been called that? No, because it's trivial. Spelling out all those details overdetails the synopsis, and the average reader, who may well read the article without being a Sout Park fan, gets losgt in all the detail. The level of detail you want to bring may be appropriate for a fan site, but it's just way too much detail for an ecnyclopaedia, which is there to give just an overview of a subject.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The mention of Twilight in the episode is not a sufficiently reliable source? I don't see how this can be the case. I also don't see how "Clammato" isn't obviously a parody of "Clamato".71.192.116.155 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Disappointed

I so disappointed with the direction the page has taken, it's like some Charest radicals have taken it over, and are attempting to rewrite history, any talk of nationalism has been relegated to a mere footnote. SADNESS. I have no time to jump back into the debate, unfortunately, or fortunately, the endless useless attempts at compromise only served to create non-truths, sigh...--4.234.159.119 (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)