Difference between revisions of "User talk:Danielkaplan123"
|Line 2:||Line 2:|
I guess I'm top speculator on Parson being a Signamancer. I've also contributed as much as I can to all the Hippiemancer
I guess I'm top speculator on Parson being a Signamancer. I've also contributed as much as I can to all the Hippiemancer speculation, Flower Power, Signamancy, and Date-a-Mancy. Mostly because I just think they so bleep'n cool, but also from the input I've received, I seem to be finding un-before-mined-threads of logic that appears to flesh them out based on what we've seen so far.
==Parson the Signamancer Essay==
==Parson the Signamancer Essay==
Revision as of 14:11, 31 January 2010
I guess I'm top speculator on Parson being a Signamancer. I've also contributed as much as I can to all the Hippiemancer discipline speculation, Flower Power, Signamancy, and Date-a-Mancy. Mostly because I just think they are so bleep'n cool, but also from the input I've received, I seem to be finding un-before-mined-threads of logic that appears to flesh them out based on what we've seen so far.
Parson the Signamancer Essay
Hey there. First off, welcome to the Wiki. :) I noticed you've done a lot of editing to the Signamancer and Parson Gotti articles, to explain the argument for Parson being a Signamancer. Most of that is really good stuff, but I wanted to let you know that I edited the "there appears to be far more evidence that this is true" part, and explain a bit why I did it. Yes, it's a pretty good argument, but phrasing it that way implies that there's consensus about Parson being a Signamancer among those who speculate, which (as of yet) is not the case - it's still a topic widely debated on the forum. I kept the link - that there's evidence outside of Janis's word and wispy thematic elements - but rephrased it to be mentioned as the most significant of several instead of being explicitly called "far more" than other arguments.
Also, incidentally, I'm wondering whether it might be good to have the Signamancy page link to the speculation on Parson rather than duplicating it, to save maintenance effort (it's hard to keep two copies of the same argument identical as edits trickle in over time). Speculations on what Signamancy is and what it means in the context of this theory are definitely a good idea - and should stay on the page - but talk about Parson in particular is probably best left in his own article.
I didn't make any edits on this second idea, though, and both of these are just my own opinion; I'll step back if you want to change things back to how they were, or keep them as they are. And in any case, I hope this hasn't been overintimidating for you - I just wanted to put my two cents in the pot. :) —Menlo Marseilles 12:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
--All good suggestions. Didn't mean to imply anything besides there "appears to be far more evidence that it is true" and appreciate you removing the perceived consensus. I went ahead and added the link to the Signmancy page. Ooo, but now I reread and see you were thinking the opposite. I left it on Parson page because its really speculation about Parson and his behavior rather than speculation on Signamancy. For example, if Parson didn't exist, none of this write would have any evidence. If Signmancy didn't exist, parson would still be exhibiting all these same aspects. Hope that makes sense.
- Makes perfect sense. I added some of the stuff back into Signamancy that we know regardless of the Parson-related speculation, but other than that things look good. Menlo Marseilles 20:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)