Cannabis Sativa

Content deleted Content added
151.30.41.252 (talk)
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 65: Line 65:
:In the time between my last edit to the page and my posting this new section on the talk page, the section has been put up again! This time their summary reads "tired of you undoing my section, you are a hater check your privileges". [[User:Eladynnus|Eladynnus]] ([[User talk:Eladynnus|talk]]) 09:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
:In the time between my last edit to the page and my posting this new section on the talk page, the section has been put up again! This time their summary reads "tired of you undoing my section, you are a hater check your privileges". [[User:Eladynnus|Eladynnus]] ([[User talk:Eladynnus|talk]]) 09:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
::And now the user is restoring the section with edit summaries claiming that the issue has been discussed and been decided in his favor. He also deleted this section with a similar edit summary, apparently trying to hide the fact that they have not participated in any such discussion. [[User:Eladynnus|Eladynnus]] ([[User talk:Eladynnus|talk]]) 01:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
::And now the user is restoring the section with edit summaries claiming that the issue has been discussed and been decided in his favor. He also deleted this section with a similar edit summary, apparently trying to hide the fact that they have not participated in any such discussion. [[User:Eladynnus|Eladynnus]] ([[User talk:Eladynnus|talk]]) 01:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
:::Stop doing vandalism. The section is a legit recollection of posts by Rich Burlew himself. You're removing it without stating any valid reason and that's called "vandalism"
:::in my book. Please refrain removing my section again without providing a valid reason in order to do that. Thanks.

Revision as of 09:39, 13 August 2016

Untitled

Someone put a stub for this article back up, and I seized the opportunity. Ig8887 11:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Health issues

No mention about his health issues? zzyss (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a source for the information, feel free to add it. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite Rich mentioning, on numerous occasions, his health as a factor for OotS being delayed, it appears this aspect is being downplayed on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.250.178.63 (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source it, then add it. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is "downplayed" because it has rarely been anything more than indirectly mentioned, and the few times where it was direct topic specifics have still not been given. Frankly, there's nothing to state other than gossip and hearsay. There are quite a few reasons to not include such loose information, not the least of which being that it's not anybody's business. :P --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree that it's "not anybody's business." Illnesses are notable things, and this illness also affects the release schedule of a notable work. I believe if there were a reference on the topic, it would belong in this article. 74.67.190.120 (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are no references so the point of moot. Any details available would only be able to be gained through original research of the snooping and stalking kind. Hence it is pretty moot. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On his blog, starting at the entry for 7/7/07 (scroll down a bit) Mr. Burlew states that he has changed the schedule of the comic from its original Monday/Wednesday/Friday format, and has cancelled numerous appearances at conventions, due to his illness. There it is, sourced, verified, and significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.225.251 (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There you go. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if you feel the need to incorporate it, then feel free to do so. I don't find it noteworthy enough for inclusion; if for no other reason, I cannot think of a webcomic that has not had schedule changes due to personal-life/professional-life/various complications. Maybe my view on the matter is the minority. That's why I'm not removing any valid additions on the matter. I can see your viewpoint on the matter, and off the top of my head I can think of Poison Elves/Drew Hayes as a somewhat similar example; then again in the case of the late Mr. Hayes there was no forwarning and "dire consequences", where in this case there is mention without discussion and minor consequences. It appears, to me at least, to be a trivial matter deliberately not discussed by Mr. Burlew due to reasons of privacy and all-in-all not worthy of inclusion. You're free to do as you wish however, within the bounds of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. Since when are people on the internet thoughtful and respectful of other people's opinions? I do think Mr. Burlew's health is fairly important, but I don't really feel comfortable deciding the matter. I'll leave the info here in case somebody with a stronger opinion comes along. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.226.238 (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

I think adding a headshot of Burlew would be beneficial to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egs1122 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do! 129.33.19.254 (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to but I don't know how to find one that's not copyrighted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egs1122 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Order of the Stick

The proper title of the comic is "The Order of the Stick". It should not be shortened to just "Order of the Stick" (without the "The"), unless it is being quoted from a source that way. For example, if someone says "I think Order of the Stick is the best webcomic ever", then you quote it that way, but otherwise we should use "The Order of the Stick" in all instances. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rich Burlew. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User keeps restoring OR section

There is a whole section of OR about minorities in Burlew's comic which only cites threads from his forum, which you can see in this archived version of the page. Both User:YITYNR and I have removed it for violating Wikipedia policies about original research, but an anonymous IP editor from Italy has reverted us each time with aggressive summaries like "it's the third time you do that and the third time i have to reverd: STOP REMOVING THIS SECTION. thanks." which also identify our edits as possible vandalism. Is it possible for an outside arbitrator to step in? The section is blatant original research based on the flimsiest self-published material of all, forum posts. The IP editor's comments are also troubling. Eladynnus (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the time between my last edit to the page and my posting this new section on the talk page, the section has been put up again! This time their summary reads "tired of you undoing my section, you are a hater check your privileges". Eladynnus (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And now the user is restoring the section with edit summaries claiming that the issue has been discussed and been decided in his favor. He also deleted this section with a similar edit summary, apparently trying to hide the fact that they have not participated in any such discussion. Eladynnus (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stop doing vandalism. The section is a legit recollection of posts by Rich Burlew himself. You're removing it without stating any valid reason and that's called "vandalism"
in my book. Please refrain removing my section again without providing a valid reason in order to do that. Thanks.

Leave a Reply