Talk:Ozymandias (Breaking Bad)

Lots of good sources
See here I don't have the time/energy to add them myself but there are a treasure trove. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Phone call
I have to say I just don't comprehend the analysis of the phone call Walt makes to Skyler. Walt calls and accuses Skyler of not helping him with his business. But Skyler did help Walt with his business. Walt knows Skyler helped. And Skyler knows Skyler helped.

In other words, what else could Walt's accusation that she didn't help and her decision to go along with Walt's premise during the recorded call be but an attempt to exonerate her? It couldn't be genuine anger from Walt, because that would make sense only if Skyler hadn't helped -- which she did.

Walt's call is an obvious effort to exonerate her. No other explanation makes sense.

Billmckern (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The way the paragraph is worded, to me, implies Walt knows the police are listening and doesn’t want Skyler to get in trouble with them. I think it would be more accurate and understandable to make clear Walter is speaking only to Skyler, and/or remove “He attempts to establish Skyler’s innocence.”
 * I do think it is likely that Walter genuinely believes Skyler was not/unhelpful. Walter is not a rational person, especially at this moment. NayR5 (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Stop the sesquipedalianism
Using unnecessary overcomplicated Latinate words is not big and not clever and it has been reverted more than once. (It wasn't even the right word.) I suggested the text was probably unnecessary, and after looking at the GA reviewed version I have restored the WP:STATUSQUO by removing the recently added phrase entirely. -- 109.78.196.150 (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems like more than 3 reverts to me but he's still edit warring about this pretentious nonsense and being WP:UNCIVIL and swearing about it too. I'm going to wait before reverting it again myself, but I hope other editors will put an end to this. This goes back to July[], the edit was a mistake that simply never should have been made in the first place, and to insist on trying to keep it is absurd. -- 109.78.196.150 (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * User was doing similar things in other places and was banned (for at least six months). Editors who are not me have restored the first paragraph to the status quo (and it is pretty much the same as it was when it was reviewed for Good Article status). -- 109.78.204.166 (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Get a life dude 50.46.245.173 (talk) 06:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)