Talk:Curtis Lemansky

Trivia
what kind of shotgun does lemmy use? -Lordraydens 03:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Other members didn't know?
It's extremely POV to say that the other members didn't know. I watched the episode with a friend, and we both had different opinions on who knew. As such, I think it's safer to say that it is unclear whether the other members (primarily Vic) knew that it was Shane who killed Lem.

There are at least two possibilities. 1) Vic set the killing up with Shane. Vic called Ronnie and told him he was being followed, when in fact he wasn't be followed, and neither was Ronnie or Shane. Thus, Vic and Shane kept Ronnie in the dark about what they were up to, by using the tails as an alibi to keep Ronnie (and Vic, though he knew) from meeting up with Lem. 2) Vic doesn't know, and Shane was scared and took it upon himself to kill Lem.

Either way, it's unclear. --Wilhelm Screamer 14:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Saying that they didn't know is just relaying the information given on the show itself. The other possibility you mention is pure speculation. If you have your suspicions about it, that's fine, but it's not even so much as hinted at in the episode. So it's not "POV" to say they didn't know, and any other conjecture should be kept out of the article. Kafziel 14:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm also unclear what you mean about Vic making up the thing about being tailed. They specifically show Kavanaugh and his guy splitting up. Kavanaugh follows Vic and he sends the other guy after Ronnie. Kafziel 14:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Saying that they didn't know isn't just relaying the information from the show. The show didn't say that the other members didn't know, it implied it; just as much as it implied that Vic did know, depending on the person watching and what they think is going on. And you can't say that it's not hinted at because it is. Now that's my opinion, and that's as far as it goes. But as such, it shows that at least one person thinks it's hinted at, and is therefore unfair to say that it empirically isn't. My point is that the statements in the article expressly said that the other members didn't know which is not provable. Just as much as it isn't provable that Vic did know. Therefore, wouldn't it be fair, under Wikipedia's policy of being unbiased, to include both (or more) sides? And the simplest way to include both (or more) sides, is to just say that it is unclear whether the other team members knew what Shane was up to. Instead of saying "the other members didn't know", say, "it is unclear if the other members knew". Saying it's unclear doesn't advance either side, it allows the reader to make up their own mind. Someone had wrote "Vic vows to find out who killed Lem, unaware that the killer, Shane, was standing right beside him." How do we know he's unaware?! That right there is POV! Point of View. Someone had the opinion, the point of view to look at that scene and say that he's unaware, while another person, watching the same scene would say he was aware. Therefore, that statement isn't a Neutral POV. --Wilhelm Screamer 15:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You're a little bit new here, so I'd suggest you read a little more about how neutrality works on Wikipedia. See Neutral point of view. Some random theory does not deserve mention just because one person (or even several people) believe it might be so. If you don't have proof in the form of independently verifiable sources, then it doesn't belong here.
 * The source for the statement that no one else knew is the show itself. It is explicitly shown that they are tailed (still don't know what you were talking about there). It is explicitly shown that Vic and Ronnie expect Lem to show up at the meeting point. Vic makes his vow to kill the murderer in private, rather than as a display for Kavanaugh and the others; there would be no point in doing that if they all knew. That's not POV, that's just the facts as presented in the show. At no point in time is it ever hinted at that Vic knows what is about to happen. It might turn out later that he did, and that's the point where the information should be added to the article. Wikipedia's neutrality policy does not mean you get to add your personal interpretation to everything.
 * By the way - the "unaware that the killer..." part was removed earlier. Kafziel 16:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's back up a bit here. First of all, I specifically said I wasn't taking a side, so I don't know why you keep saying things along the lines of "Some random theory does not deserve mention just because one person (or even several people) believe it might be so. If you don't have proof in the form of independently verifiable sources, then it doesn't belong here." I'm not trying to advance any point, except neutrality, so I hope we're clear on that. Any side I took was on the talk page, not the article page.
 * Second, as far as Vic making the threat in private, you missed my point. As I said in my first post, Vic and Shane would be in together... NOT Vic, Shane and Ronnie. Therefore, Vic could possibly make the threat statement in front of Ronnie, to eliminate any doubt cast by Ronnie on Vic or Shane. Third, you keep saying it's not hinted at. That right there is a matter of perception. You cannot say it is not hinted at, because it's a matter of a person's perception. If one person thinks it's hinted at, and another think it's not, then who is right? Neither, because it's completely unprovable. It's entirely the person's own individual perception of what they think was happening. Hints in a show are perceptions. When Vic looked back at Shane, and the camera zoomed in, that could be a hint, depending on who's watching the show, and how they interprit things. Lastly, why are you telling me that Wikipedia's neutrality policy does not mean I get to add my personal interpretation to everything? That's exactly what I said in the beginning about the person who posted non neutral material! And regardless of that, I'm NOT adding, nor have I added ANY personal interpretation to the article. So I don't think you're understanding my position. I'm would like to stop discussing this, as it's really not complicated. To clarify, I'm not actually new (as people tend to use "new" as an insult). I'm been editing here on an IP for a while, and just recently acquired a user name. If I'm not mistaken, that's what these talk pages are for right? To discuss things in a friendly matter, discussing all viewpoints to prevent edit wars? I'm in no way going to be involved in an edit war, so if you revert the pages back to when they said "the other members didn't know" and "Vic was unaware the killer was standing right next to him" I wouldn't be changing them back. I can see I'm not making my simple point in the talk pages.
 * And by the way, the "unaware" line was removed by me just after my second post, so I'm aware of that. If you're saying it was removed earlier than when I removed it, then someone keeps putting it back in. --Wilhelm Screamer 16:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the polite thing to do is discuss changes on the talk page before making them, rather than deleting chunks of text and dropping a note after the fact to accuse people of "extremely POV" edits.
 * Your continued explanation of your theory (and, regardless of what you claim, it is your theory - I've seen no one else advancing it) shows just how much conjecture you're drawing on. I can see how one might make the leap that Vic knew, but how could one possibly come to the definite conclusion that Ronnie didn't know? It's all speculation, and saying "may or may not have known" is just weasel wording.
 * I haven't reverted your changes, and I'm not going to, because it doesn't matter all that much to me. The most important thing here is that you understand the need for civility and being more polite and less quick to get heated in your future talk page entries. Rather than, "It's extremely POV to say that the other members didn't know. I watched the episode with a friend, and we both had different opinions on who knew," you could have simply said, "Is it a fact that the others didn't know? I think we should remove that statement until more information comes in." Your opinion is stated, you've started the discussion, and progress can then be made. If you had done that, I probably wouldn't have added a single post to the talk page, except to agree with you. Politeness counts. Kafziel 17:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's interesting that you think I was impolite in my first post, especially considering it's very difficult to determine one's tone by reading their words without "loud" language or punctuation, as mine lacked both. Again, more individual interpretation and perception at work here. In all honesty, I had no tone in my head whatsoever when I was writing that, and I don't understand how that can be misinterpreted. As far as editing procedure, I've done more than most casual editors do when making changes, and that is to leave any kind of discussion on a talk page after making changes. Typically, a change is made, and if we're lucky, an edit summary is left. I did one better by starting the discussion of the (overall, rather insignificant) changes. Unfortunately, nothing much gets done if a person posts on the talk pages to propose a change, rather than to be bold and make the change themselves, especially one so small. So, I politely deny your accusations of being impolite, heated, and uncivil. I believe it's all in how a person takes it. Perhaps because they were your edits, you felt I was attacking you personally. Not true. --Wilhelm Screamer 18:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Specific copy edits needed
I've started copy editing this, but uh well I got bored with it. The whole thing could use a once-over for grammar and punctuation, but it's not all that bad. The worst thing going on, and it's a real easy fix, is the inconsistent verb tense. Some episodes are described in past tense, some are in present. I don't know which is considered "standard", but dang, it needs to be one or the other throughout. Oh and somebody needs to standardize all the references to specific seasons, with regard to capitalization and numerals vs. words. The phrase "Season One" does not need to be followed by "season 2," etc.

Jessicapierce 16:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your grammar isn't so great yourself, Jessicapierce.


 * I have to say I agree. ;)  I went through the whole thing, found a few minor problems.  Sure, some of the sentences are long, but I think these sentences capture the feel of television and how people recount television to others.  I began to care about the character, btw, and was sad when he died.  So the article works on a couple of levels.  Good job.  If any further copyedits are needed, you can contact me on my talk page.  I took the tag off - it's fine the way it is.--Levalley (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)