Do you have an idea for a new wiki? Please share it with us here
Take the Dharma Wants You test, all about Lostpedia, here

From Lostpedia

Hey Dharmatel4, thank you for your hard work on The Island article. In recognition, you win the AAA medal for your efforts. Well done, you deserve it. Feel free to move this to your main userpage if you want. Regards, --Nickb123 (Talk) 15:16, 18 March 2007 (PDT)

Ben's Maps

Don't know how much detail you are looking for on discrepancy for the Radio tower, but please let me prove myself as I am fairly new to Wiki posting. I was just watching this last episode again and noticed the differences and I searched whether Ben's Map discrepancy had been noted and I couldn't find anything on it, so this looked to be the best/easiest place to post it. Thanks for your continued feedback. --Sirwesley 14:52, 13 January 2008 (PST)

Trivia

Thanks for the answer there at the Greatest Hits discussion. I was actually more interested in knowing what constitutes trivia and what not. I wrote there about a possible understanding of it, but still not sure. Also, Redshirt and Background cast have been revised after the discussion. -. Grillage .- 01:46, 22 May 2007 (PDT)

Others' "Murders" Poorly Written

When you removed my "Murders" subsection from "The Others" article, you commented that it was poorly written. I realize the history pages don't allow much room for specifics but I like to learn from my mistakes so that I can better contribute in the future. In your opinion, why was it poorly written (I tried to keep it short and sweet)? Thanks, in advance, for the feedback.--Puddin Tame 08:13, 20 April 2007 (PDT)

• My "Murders" section may have appeared disconnected because I gave each sentence a line of its own in order to let other users expand upon each as they saw fit. The first line of the section, however, provided what I thought was a connection to the examples that followed, "A number of murders/attempted murders have been attributed to the Others." I suppose I could have placed all the sentences together but I thought that would make for a rather dense paragraph dealing with too many topics.

• As for duplicating information already in the article, this may be true but might not a section dealing with the specific crime of murder (in the same spirit as the section on "Kidnappings") be the more appropriate place for such information?

• Regarding the use of psychological torture on Sawyer: I believe this speaks to the Others' modus operandi. If "The Others" is not an appropriate article to discuss this in, what is?

• As for Scott's broken neck being a theory as to how he died, I disagree. Look at the dialogue from the episode:

Episode 15 , season 1 -- Homecoming

HURLEY: I thought those guys had a full on perimeter set up.

KATE: Locke said it didn't matter -- he came in from the water.

HURLEY: You sure it wasn't an accident? I mean, maybe the guy just drowned or something.

KATE: His neck was broken, his arms, all the bones in his fingers.

HURLEY: Yeah, okay. Got it.

SAWYER [entering]: Guess old Steve drew the short straw.

HURLEY: Dude, that was Scott. [Shot of a burial mound.]

• It is heavily implied here that Scott died of a broken neck. It is clearly the most serious injury. Broken arms and broken fingers usually don't result in death. Aside from a death certificate signed by Jack listing the cause of death, I really don't think they could make it clearer. Calling this a theory would establish a very high standard for establishing cause of death on the show.

• You also seem to have removed the sentence regarding Ben's attempt to strangle Ana Lucia. Why? You're not the Others' press agent are you? j/k--Puddin Tame 15:22, 20 April 2007 (PDT)

Ben & Juliet

How do we know that they entered through connecting tunnels? The had to have at least come through the top hatch because otherwise how would Ben know to 'Have Tom cover it with the plane'? --Samhain99 10:00, 29 March 2007 (PDT)

Your right. I thought I heard something else. Dharmatel4 10:21, 29 March 2007 (PDT)

The Fence

All the tech stuff in Lostepedia is slightly confusing so forgive me if you're not the person who changed it - I was looking through the history to find out who deleted my theory which was 'The Others have no control over the security system on the Island. The fence is an electromagnetic barrier which prevents the smoke monster from entering their camp.' To my understanding Oedipus then wrote that it cannot be electromagnetic becuase it would be SBD (which it is but sure) either way Oedipus suggested sonic barrier. Whether or not it's a sonic barrier or electromagnetic fence, I thought the idea that it was used to keep the monster out was a good one especially now considering Left Behind. So I was wondring why it was removed. --Obee

Unanswered question on "One of Us"

Yes, but the question the episode brings up, the way I put it there, is: why the hell would they be interested in doing so? Why anticipate Ben's future request for that? If a plane crashes on an island I'm living in, one of the things I'm not worried about at all is getting data from everybody inside for possible manipulation purposes. I'll leave it up to you to get the question back there, but look how it was formulated: "When Ben asks Mikhail for "detailed files on every single passenger", why were their people already working on getting that - meaning, what would be their interest in doing so, and in advance?" - -. Grillage .- 23:23, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

I'm gonna quote your answer just to show my point: "Mikhail anticipated what Ben was going to want before Ben got there and started on it." - yes... but why the hell would they want to do it (Ben, Mikhail and everybody else)?? I think it goes the way I told you before: I for sure wouldn't be worried about "getting information about the people on the plane". So why Ben, Mikhail and everybody else would be? - -. Grillage .- 23:40, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

Or, let's put it this way: ok, Mikhail simply anticipated Ben's request. But think one step deeper, before accepting that: why would he anticipate that? What are their intentions on getting info on those people, instead of, say, checking for survivors, helping them, knowing what caused the crash, phoning their families, etc? This is actually one of the questions the Losties should be asking the Others (and they never do): "why are you guys interested in screwing with us and getting our profiles, instead of freakin' helping these plane crash survivors?" - -. Grillage .- 23:49, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

Yes, that was the intention. I may have put it in an awkward way, while trying to make its relation to the specifics of the episode. I'm not a native English-speaker, you know... - -. Grillage .- 23:51, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

Please, check the last question there, see if it makes sense now. - -. Grillage .- 23:55, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

Thanks and Good Job

A lot of changes to the timeline while I was away. Thanks for conferring with me first and I'm sorry I took so long to get back to you. I have looked it over and everything fits very nicely now, well done. We'll just see how long before the writers throw everything out of whack again. --Ithor6 13:52, 2 May 2007 (PDT)

Thanks and contact

Hi, thank you for the help with the language. Can I contact you somehow via instant messenger? I would like to talk to someone who is as enthusiastic as me about Lost... --Prolinesurfer 15:13, 11 May 2007 (PDT)

Mindfuck

Hey Dharmatel, I just read a post you added to the Mindfuck talk page and was a little disappointed with the comment that, only 3 peoples opinions matter on this, if your not one of them you might as well save your breathe. Whilst i can see where your coming from, please don't discourage other users from giving their point of view. Ty ! --Lewis-Talk-Contribs 14:59, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

LOST: Answers

Thanks for the sleuthing work. I'll drop a note in the article saying that the physical effects are curently unexplained and leave it saying that avionics failure wouldn't cause a break-up (as currently). Cheers, --Scottkj 19:50, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

Deletions

Please don't delete other people's additions without explaining why. --Zicsoft 07:30, 6 June 2007 (PDT)

Please take a look at the istockphoto watermarks! They look nothing like what's at the center of the compass. Oodles 17:20, 31 January 2008 (PST)

Re:Cerberusislost

• It was him. He came in to IRC Chat and flat out stated:

Clearly, he admitted to it, and admitted to being bored and vandalizing the site because he didn't feel welcome. Cheers, Marik7772003 12:55, 21 June 2007 (PDT)

Ben's diary

I notice you edited "antique" to "(unreadable)". Please see my note on the talk page. Also, if you insist on removing "antique"--which seems a plausible interpretation--the * character is being used for an unreadable word in that transcription. Cheers and thanks for your help on the page. Robert K S 15:55, 9 September 2007 (PDT)

Yo primitive is not spelled "primative." If you don't believe me, check a dictionary. Here you go: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/primative [which doesnt exist] and http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/primitive [which does] -- SauronsMatrix  talk  contribs  email  10:58, 18 September 2007 (PDT)

Recurring themes edit

Your removal of four points in recurring themes of "King of the Castle" with the edit summary, "recurring themes is not the same as story interpretation" is puzzling. I can see how one of the points is an interpretation (Jack suspects Ben of being untruthful (Deceptions and cons)); but the other three have been explicitly stated (granted the 2nd one could have cited Ben's stated motivation from 3x13.) So did you remove them because you thought they were "interpretive"? Or do you think that "Rivalries", "Leadership", "Deceptions and cons", and "Fate vs. free" are not recurring themes? Maybe you can explain further. Here are the other three points:

• Jack wishes to leave the Island, while Ben wants him to stay. (Rivalries)
• Ben expresses his desire for Jack to stay on the Island, knowing that it would be perceived as a sign of defeat among his people if he leaves. (Leadership)
• Ben says that the Island can make Jack stay. (Fate vs. free will) -- Graft   talk   contributions  00:18, 22 November 2007 (PST)

Hostiles background

Aren't they already up there in Others background? I wanted to catch you before you get too far... -- Graft   talk   contributions  20:24, 16 December 2007 (PST)

Yeah, no problem. Although, some of your Blu-ray caps might be worth using if they are higher resolution, seeing as how many of those are just quick out-of-focus shots. -- Graft   talk   contributions  20:38, 16 December 2007 (PST)

Blu-Ray captures

• Hey, thanks for getting the names of all those DHARMA Members from the dvd screencaps. I was wondering if you can look to see if Dharma Rep. 1's name tag is visible on the dvd version and if you can get a good screencap of it, thanks. -Mr.Leaf 19:54, 29 December 2007 (PST)

• Thanks, no problem. I just wanted to see if we could get a name, he's the only unnamed member, we named the rest. Thanks anyway, appreciate your work on all the names and screen caps. -Mr.Leaf 10:00, 1 January 2008 (PST)

• Hello, I was wondering if any other of the maps and schematics shown in the "Blu-Prints" section would be useful for articles here? I saw the Barracks one, and it seemed very good (though it's not on the article), and I wondered if you thought the others would be good for the wiki?

I was also wondering, since I can't remember too well, if there are any images in the "seamless menus" that illustrate the locations better than pictures we have. Not too sure, and I'll look at the menus to see if there is one I think would illustrate the location better, but if you know of any I think it might be a good idea to upload them and put them in their article.

Thank you, I'm just very curious about it, even if there aren't any menus or Blu-Prints that serve the purpose we want them to, then at least we'll know for sure and won't have that hanging around. --Sauron18 16:47, 2 March 2008 (PST)

Naomi's death

What do you mean by "spoiler hint edits"? How has Naomi's death been confirmed?--Bonefishj0e 20:05, 12 January 2008 (PST)

Kate's motives

You noted that Kate intended to profit financially from Wayne's death via the insurance policy that she took out before killing him, but didn't she do that for her mother (not herself)? I thought the policy was in her mother's name. Also, you noted that her mother figured out her scheme, but I thought she told her mother herself what she had done (when she gave her the insurance policy). Am i remembering that scene wrong?--Bonefishj0e 04:42, 13 January 2008 (PST)

Agreed on her mother figuring it out as opposed to Kate telling her what she did, but I still think you might want to rethink the assertion that Kate intended to profit financially. I still think she did that for her mother, not herself, especially since she expected/intended to disappear for a while after the murder. Just my opinion, though.--Bonefishj0e 08:21, 14 January 2008 (PST)

Charlie crossing himself

Why did you revert my edit on the way Charlie crossed himself? He touched his left hand to his left shoulder first, and that is the mirror image of Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholic, not Roman Catholic. The "mirror image" comment only works if he was doing it like the Orthodox do. If it were the mirror image of a Roman Catholic crossing himself he would have reached across to his right shoulder first.--Paidinfull 08:02, 13 January 2008 (PST) If you delete something you should mention why in the summary line. This one had me scratching my head.--Paidinfull 12:00, 13 January 2008 (PST)

So It Begins

Hey, I reworded and re-added the Mindf*ck trivia. The point wasn't to say that what Jack saw was visions, but that it had previously been explainable as visions, and that now that explanation is no longer tenable. Also, I re-added the "eyes" recurring theme. I'm not sure why you removed it, as there was no edit summary. But it's such a big recurring theme around here (the references are all over on Lostpedia), that if you have an issue with eyes being a recurring theme, I think it's the kind of thing that you have to bring up for discussion somewhere other than an individual mobisode page. -- Graft   talk   contributions  05:28, 29 January 2008 (PST)

Hi, its more than likely it was removed because what you put was only previously a theory not mentioned on the show. Therefore, its fan theory, not an actual technique the producers knowingly used. --Lewis-Talk-Contribs 06:10, 29 January 2008 (PST)

• Quoting from my talk page: "I don't agree that Jack ever saw visions. That was a theory that many people promoted as fact but that I never saw as proven."
  • A Mindf*ck doesn't require its antecedent to be proven true. Mindf*cks are based upon the upturning of perceptions and expectations about reality. For instance, before it was known what the Black Rock was, it was expected and plausible, but not proven, that it was a large black rock; instead, the reveal of a large ship in the middle of the jungle was a Mindf*ck, because it upturned expectations. A Mindf*ck actually can't overturn something that is proven to be true, because then it wouldn't be a Mindf*ck, it would just be a contradiction within the the rules set forth by the narrative. -- Graft   talk   contributions  15:53, 29 January 2008 (PST)
• Edit: Oh, I see your revision to the trivia now. I don't think it's necessary to state that it was considered a theory (as it was the simplest rational explanation), but it seems fine. -- Graft   talk   contributions  16:07, 29 January 2008 (PST)

Re:Access Granted Edits

• I wasn't aware of that. I assumed they were just some sort of copy paste addition or something. However looking at the page IMO it looks cleaner without them. A note could be put on the top but I don't mind if the edits are reverted, I assume you have the blu-ray so I'll leave it up to you as to which you think best represent the content. Thanks, -Mr.Leaf 17:16, 29 January 2008 (PST)

Jacob

• Just out of curiosity, why did you delete all of the unanswered questions on Jacob? I'll agree there were a lot and it needed trimmed, but I don't think they all had to go. --Gluphokquen Gunih ▲ 21:14, 30 January 2008 (PST)
• Aha! Ok cool. --Gluphokquen Gunih ▲ 21:22, 30 January 2008 (PST)

Need to speak to you

Hi Dharmatel4, could you email me please (use the signature link) I need to talk to you about something. Thanks. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  10:45, 7 February 2008 (PST)

Hi Dharmate14! I just wanted to tell you congratulations on becoming a SYSOP! You guys are doing a great job and this is an AMAZING site! Thank you for providing such a wonderful site for the fans and for doing your best to keep the information accurate. --Asifpatel 18:22, 24 February 2008 (PST)

You are now a SysOp

Welcome to the team Dharmatel4. I will ask Admin to add you to the forums also. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  15:57, 9 February 2008 (PST)

• Welcome aboard. -- ^C¯ _Santa_ ¯^T 16:02, 9 February 2008 (PST)

Congrats on being made a SysOp! --Nickb123 (Talk) 16:27, 9 February 2008 (PST)

Congrats, and welcome to the team! You're a welcome addition around here. :) --Marik7772003 16:55, 9 February 2008 (PST)

Congratulations, Dharmatel4. Robert K S 17:30, 9 February 2008 (PST)

Congrats Dharmatel. -Mr.Leaf 19:49, 13 February 2008 (PST)

Congratulations!! --   Steff    talk    contribs    email   11:35, 15 February 2008 (PST)

netiq.

• In the future please use the article or my talk page first if you have any large changes. -- ^C¯ _Santa_ ¯^T 13:50, 11 February 2008 (PST)
  • I specifically asked you politely to use my talk page or the article talk page if you have any disagreements with me. What is the difficulty here? Please do not continue this edit war. To make it easy for you, click: here Talk:Zoë Bell or User_talk:Santa to talk first BEFORE reverting my edits. I know you can manage that. -- ^C¯ _Santa_ ¯^T 11:46, 13 February 2008 (PST)

Future Dates

If no future dates are allowed on the timeline, why is there space for January 2005? Seriously, deleting a date 24 hours before it occurs in the show is a little much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackdutton42 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 13 February 2008.

Didn't Mean To Delete Those

I didn't mean to delete those entries regarding the Unanswered Questions in the Brig. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frink (talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 March 2008.

Why did you delete my Walkabout Question?

You told me "You need to edit these questions more carefully" yet you deleted one of my questions in Walkabout with no reason, you seemed to undo a lot of my posts without putting a reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frink (talk • contribs) 00:32, 5 March 2008.

Blast door map (Via Domus)

Better wording. Thanks -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 12:17, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

Karl's death

If you are so confused, even as a SysOp, as to what canon sources are... Look at the canon policy. Actors are NOT considered canon, and neither are sites like EW.com  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  13:02, 22 March 2008 (PDT)

Timeline

Okay, but the enhanced page says "it is unknown whether the captioned information should be considered canon", not that they are non-canon. Perhaps that should be updated if new information has been found to say they are not canon. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:30, 7 April 2008 (PDT)

Damon and Carlton have not yet commented on this on the podcast, but it's clear to me that the enhanced episode content producers have access to canon information that isn't otherwise available to us (e.g., the Essex woman from "Confirmed Dead" being Daniel's caretaker, not his wife). Like anything aired on ABC, we should take the content at face value until proven irreconcilable with other information. Robert K S (talk) 07:34, 7 April 2008 (PDT)

Canon seems to have been dismissed out of hand based on an assumption that the writers were not involved due to the strike (they couldn't have provided the information beforehand?). Marking them non-canon is opposed to the statement earlier in canon indicating "Lost episodes (noted by Lindelof as "the only true canon")" are canon. The enhancements are part of the episode, and unless they specifically state otherwise, I would assume them canon for that reason. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:42, 7 April 2008 (PDT)

You could put them in the timeline if you mark each one as being non-canon if you really want to. Anything beyond that should really be taken up in the context of canon itself. I don't necessarly know that everyone agrees that the enhancements are "part of the episode". Dharmatel4 07:47, 7 April 2008 (PDT)

Thanks to you and LOSTonthisdarnisland for pointing me to that recent change made to the canon page. The assignment of Enhanced episodes to the non-canon category was made without support. Robert K S (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2008 (PDT)

Sandbox

I was moving things around, but I got tired and started confusing myself so I stopped where I was (it's wee morning here). I'll look at it with fresh eyes during daytime hours, considering the points you made on my talk page. Thanks :) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 09:03, 7 April 2008 (PDT)

Thanks for the time information from Enter 77. I think it would be particularly helpful if we had entries on the timeline to indicate timestamps like that given in episodes. It enforces the time set in canon, and could be written as quotes (like I'm doing in my sandbox) so that it's obvious whether the timestamp is open to interpretation ("about", possible rounding, or exact dates and days on island given, like Ben did). -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:55, 7 April 2008 (PDT)

That's why there is a big gap above those items. I was aware that some of it is day 80, because I have the night before on day 79. I was still trying to suss out all the bits. I was distracted by real life, but before I continue moving things about, I realise I need look over the entries because I've mismarked some of the episodes. It's still a mess, but any time stamp clues you know of are very helpful. If you want to put them on the sandbox talk page, I certainly won't object :) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 21:58, 8 April 2008 (PDT)

I'm sticking to my sandbox now, okay? I'm just not up for another long drawn out thing like mindf*ck. I think removing the banner was a bad move, but nothing I said as intended to be personal toward you and I strongly disagree with how Castaway responded to you as harsh and uncalled for. Please, if you have time, would you comment on my sandbox version (found through my user page) regarding what I might have missed or why it's wrong? I still think the current timeline is pretty much unusable in many ways, and that obvious error on DOC is causing a big confict where none need exist. The timestamps on Greatest Hits (even the enhanced versions, if they are correct, but I'm not using them as any determining factor) make it day 90. DOC has two conflicting statements, neither of which I believe to be true, and only one of which is in the supposed consensus version (Saturday); the DOC 90 day comment has been (correctly) disregarded. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:25, 13 April 2008 (PDT)

I'm still trying to clarify the ping-pong game reference (might be KLRS first day walking to the Flame resolves the problem) and find any other clues. Tweaks with each rewatch/skim of the episodes involved are necessary. I have some more notes to add which I may not get to today because I have a deadline to meet which is going to keep me busy. You'll know I'm satisfied when you see a note at the top of my timeline to that effect, okay? Changes to other articles will need to be made but I think correct timeline first, worry about how many changes to other articles will need to be corrected later, makes the best sense (perhaps editors shouldn't use the days/dates on other articles based on the timeline, but rather include them only if they are actually present in the particular episode or an officially-released timeline book, eh?). Clues were dismissed as wrong or unimportant because they broke what some editors viewed as the "correct version" of the timeline. I disagree with some of those views for other reasons (usually timestamped by the character), and find the timeline works better when timestamps are considered firstly, then context clues. Kate's yesterday comment about Naomi, along with Naomi's 3 days ago comment disregarded for editor opinon about day/night and how long it would really take them to carry the stretcher, for example. These are big considerations because I believe they are key to the problems we have with the timeline. However, Juliet is just wrong in DOC, on both fronts (90 and Saturday), I deduce; it's not the first time, if you'll recall her "you killed a man the night before you got on the plane" fiasco, conflicting with 3 days in jail (so Aussie police allow prisioners to get out and drink heavily and murder people? LOL, only in Sydney :) ). My main point is the events are all on-island time (like the jail and murder were all Sydney time), so any conflict with the outside world time (if there is one) HAS to be ignored until we are told differently. DOC is being based on the 2004 calendar and throwing everything off. Greatest Hits timestamps 90 days and The Brig gives us 8-days/3-days ago, and they are both misrepresented on the LP timeline. What if specific dates were removed from the December timeline and it was just indicated by day markers (Day 80, Day 81, etc.)? We can add the outside world dates later if we are told as part of canon when a conflict happened (if it happened). As it stands now, we are creating a timeline around outside world dates while most of us assume there is a confict in time, but not knowing when it happened (was it 31 minutes as day? was it the discharge?) makes the timeline as it stands incorrect. This suggestion has us placing focus only with on-island events and will hopefully straighten out the problem. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:32, 16 April 2008 (PDT)

My example above was bad, but the principle was correct. I think I've tweaked my timeline to death now. Have at it :D -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:42, 17 April 2008 (PDT)

Hey, I hope you didn't take offence at my comment back to you last night on Dec-Timeline:discussion. I wasn't annoyed, but with a second read, I realise it might sound like I was. I was just tired and didn't phrase myself properly. No offence intended. I'm glad we got the timeline better than it was, and hopefully we can finetune it with footnotes as we move forward. Can't wait to see where they go with the time difference :) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:23, 18 April 2008 (PDT)

Newspaper clipping

Thanks for catching my mistake. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:34, 9 April 2008 (PDT)

Lostpedia:Requests for page protection‎

Hi. Do you think you could look into the two requests I left here? One of them has been there a couple of days with no response. Thanks –  jj137 (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2008 (PDT)

OK, I didn't know that. On Template:Season4nav, could you change "Episode 9" to "The Shape of Things to Come"? –  jj137 (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2008 (PDT)

An Idea I had?

• Would you mind going and checking it out at Lostpedia:Ideas#Interviews? I'd really appreciate your input! :D Thank you very much,--  Lost Soul   talk  contribs  07:56, 14 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Okay, thank you very much. Let's say, for sake of example, it's Michael Giacchino that's being interviewed. I would probably set up a page called Interview:Michael Giacchino. Then, on the talk page, I would post a brief little description of how and when it was going to be happening, and then give our members a chance to submit questions. They'd probably have a week to do that - I'd also do the same thing on the forums, where I am more active. The interview itself will probably either be done by email (i.e. I email the questions, he emails them back), or IM if he has it. I plan (if I get the go-ahead) to ask people like Jorge Garcia, Henry Ian Cusick, and then some members of the writing team, past and present, such as David Fury, as well as perhaps the director of photography, Cort Fey. But that's way in the future. Incidentally, how many votes do you need at Lostpedia:Ideas for an idea to get the go ahead?--  Lost Soul   talk  contribs  00:27, 17 April 2008 (PDT)
    • Ok, excellent. I made User:Lost Soul/interview and User talk:Lost Soul/interview as a sort of template. I'm going to email Michael today, and see what he says - I doubt he'll agree, being so busy and all, but you never know, I could get lucky! Thanks for all your support!--  Lost Soul   talk  contribs  00:27, 17 April 2008 (PDT)

Re: links to episodes

Which article(s) are you asking about my comments on? I've made simillar comments on a number of articles in the past day, some have since been resolved, others have been pointed out to me that I was misreading the spoiler policy and some have not yet been resolved as far as I can tell. I've given up on getting unaired episode pages, but I would like us to link to their press releases (which the 4x09 press release with cast/crew/synopsis info was not posted until after I mentioned it). At the moment, I am trying to argue that the ABC Medianet page ought to link to unaired episode press releases (even beyond the next unaired episode) but should not reveal their title, nor create a page for the episodes, simply link to the press releases 4x09 is linked to from its episode page, but not from the ABC Medianet page. 4x10 is also available and I think it should be linked to. If there's any other specific comments I've made that you're wondering about, please let me know and I'd be happy to clarify anything. :) Jimbo the tubby 11:08, 16 April 2008 (PDT)

Alright, thanks, I brought up the ABC Medianet page on the Spoiler Policy talk page. I would've added 4x09 to the press releases myself, but for some reason I thought that page had been locked. Anyways, when I finish my current semester in a couple weeks, I'll take a look at adding the missing press releases to the page. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. :) Jimbo the tubby 11:49, 16 April 2008 (PDT)

timeline

I'm not sure which ones you mean should be on 81 instead of 80? Do you mean after an assumed divide at midnight? I'd agree with some being moved to 81 for that reason, because the following to me would be in the dark hours of the morning:

• "The Man from Tallahassee"
  • Ben and Richard take the handcuffs off Locke
  • Ben tells Locke he is special because of his ability to "commune with the Island".
  • Ben and Richard take Locke to see what came out of the "box": Anthony Cooper.
• "The Brig"
  • Ben invites Locke to the Ruins with the Others.
• "One of Us"
  • Ben plans for Juliet to infiltrate the crash survivors and identify pregnant women that the Others will kidnap. BEN: [Hands Juliet a gas mask] See you in a week.
• "Left Behind"
  • Held captive in the rec room, Kate strikes out with a pool stick at the person walking through the door. Kate is thrown to the ground, discovering it is Juliet who said she was just bringing her a sandwich.

I'll move those, but I'm not going to fall on my sword over the move because it's not established clearly enough just where midnight would have hit. My reasoning is Locke was told they were leaving first thing in the morning, meaning that daylight was approaching soon. Evidence: Jack's in the morning refers to just after midnight, because it's pitch black out, while Ben's refers to first light, because it's light when they leave. All these events take place in the dark (darkness outside the hallway window when they walk by before and after Cooper, outside Ben's house window, outside the gameroom) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:35, 18 April 2008 (PDT)

Hey, the move you just made on Dec timeline? I think that's wrong. I think Jack's comment "in the morning" means "just after midnight"-morning, making those events take place around 11pm(-ish) on Day 80. My reasoning is there is a contrast between that "in the morning", where it's still pitch black outside as they approach the sub, and Ben's "in the morning", where Ben is referring to dawn being morning instead. Could we please undo your last move there? -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:45, 18 April 2008 (PDT) Edit: I reworded some of it. See if that's better now 19:53, 18 April 2008 (PDT)

Vandalism

Thanks Dharmatel. It's weird, because there's usually at least one of you guys around, but today has been very quiet. And either IRC chat is broken, or else my Java update from Sun the other day has screwed something up. Cheers--TechNic|talk|conts 17:04, 21 April 2008 (PDT)

Yeah I'm glad that was sorted out. Looks like one of 'em didn't like my delete vote...--Baker1000 17:37, 21 April 2008 (PDT)

Hi Dharmatel, User:Tvlbigred has repeatedly been vandalizing the spoiler page with false information. I think you're the only sysop that actually reads the spoilers, that's why I'm alerting you. For now, I think I have restored evrything, just keep an eye out for him. Thx. --Hunter61 13:00, 27 April 2008 (PDT)

Even if you don't read spoilers, please give some sanction now. We've had to revert his edits twice more now --Hunter61 12:50, 28 April 2008 (PDT)

Tom

Please tell me what is not factual about either of these statements:

• Tom's last name, Friendly, was used three times in the enhanced captions of Meet Kevin Johnson.
• In an April 17, 2008 conference call, the producers described the enhanced episodes as "cliff notes" for the show, which some people have interpreted as confering canonicity of the enhanced episodes.

Did they, or did they not, happen? If they happened, they should be reported, regardless of whether some editors disagree! The name was mentioned three times, one of which was a clear statement of last name "Tom Friendly", fact. The conference call did describe the enhancements as cliff notes, fact. It's not right to remove that information, especially just because you think it sounds like a silly last name! -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 13:46, 22 April 2008 (PDT)

You didn't answer my questions at all. I didn't replace, nor argue, over your removal of Friendly twice in the main part of the article, understanding your point about waiting for renaming. However, those two trivia points are not renaming the article, but communicating factual information. Please tell me what you belive is non-factual about the two statements you removed, respectfully, without consensus? If you will note, those statement were added 20 April, 2 days before the complaint was lodged on 22 April. Therefore, it's not me who "has made repeated attempts to change that article in spite of an ongoing discussion", IMO. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 14:00, 22 April 2008 (PDT)

So, if I understand correctly, and please straighten me out if I'm wrong, "It doesn't matter when the edits were made. The edits were cleaned out as part of comprehensively removing the changes you made in an attempt to preempt the discussion" paraphrased and meaning regardless of the fact I added the content before a problem developed, the content was removed because a problem developed. Am I understanding you correctly? So a problem developed requiring consensus after and related to my previous edits, and the response was to remove the content I added, which was factual and not vandalism, thereby changing the status quo to the version you prefer, before a consensus could be reached, right? Please make me understand this situation, which IMO circumvents the consensus process, because a ruling of "no consensus" would now place the status quo, which was not status quo, with your prefered outcome. Is that right? -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:34, 22 April 2008 (PDT)

What is "controversial" about the facts in those statements? You still have not answered my questions. Please tell me what was wrong with them to make them not fact in your opinion. You've made my exact point, Dharmate ("So a problem developed requiring consensus after and related to my previous edits"). My individual edits do not constitute a "consensus", so consensus of the edits should be determined by discussion, not removal. You effectively made your own determination of "consensus" by removing my edits before true consensus agreed they should be removed. Therefore, I ask again, how is that not circumventing the consensus process? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 21:43, 22 April 2008 (PDT)

Firstly, not liking and not understanding are two completely separate things. I accept many things I do not like. However, the process of consensus was explained to me in one manner, and the actions taken on this article are the complete opposite of that explanation. I am attempting to understand why that is. I'm not asking for "my terms"; I'm asking to follow LP's process of consensus as I understand it. If I am in error, or if the explanation I received was in error, please tell me where the error lies. Conversely, if I am correct in my assessment, please tell me why this situation differs. That is what I am asking. Secondly, "what you are calling fact is in dispute"? Where is it in dispute it was used "three times in the enhanced captions of Meet Kevin Johnson"? I see nothing indicating the transcript is in dispute or incorrect, so the inclusion in the transcript is fact. Liking it might be in dispute, but it's still fact, regardless. And one more time, "in dispute within the discussion" means a consensus needs to be reached to determine the solution to the dispute, correct? Then why circumvent the process by removing it and changing the status quo? -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:12, 22 April 2008 (PDT)

We agree my "individual edits do not constitute a consensus", as I said already, so I am unsure why you repeated it again. However, again, the dispute arose after my individual edits so no consensus was necessary when I included those points. Consensus would be necessary to remove those points. How does the removal of the material after a supposed dispute relate to the establishment of consensus? You effectively blanked out what we are supposed to be discussing, which I was told was a definite no-no. Furthermore, it circumvents the process, in the manner I've pointed out already, by changing the status quo in the case of "no consensus" (to your prefered version, without the trivia). Finally, please point out where anyone disputes the enhanced episodes contain those three references. I call it fact because it's established in transcripts. Therefore, any problems, if there are any, would have to lie with editor misunderstanding or incorrect transcription, but not one has pointed either of those things out on the talk page. Instead, you removed them as related to another discussion. I think you are projecting the complaints over that discussion, renaming the article, onto my points regarding those two aforemented things. I'm offering it up on the talk page, and attempted a compromise to avoid certain parts since you apparently have such a problem with them. Hopefully it meets with your approval; I just didn't realise the consensus process needed it. I am also requesting a policy for consensus, because the SysOps apparently have very different viewpoints regarding the process order. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:13, 23 April 2008 (PDT)

Island story

Island history was deleted appropriately, yet the same editor has recreated it under this different name. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 13:50, 22 April 2008 (PDT)

Requests for page protection.

Hi. You seem to be the most recently active sysop on the Lostpedia:Requests for page protection page. I was wondering if you'd be willing to take some time to clear up some of the requests that have been pending for a while now. The most recent few are mine, but there also seems to be a lot of other requests that have gone unnoticed. Thanks! :)  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  16:41, 4 June 2008 (PDT)

Request/question about editing incorrect information in theory section.

Hello. Under the subsection of "Four-toed Statue" in the section "Four-Toed People" [1], a contributer cites an article to back up a factual claim. The information about the BBC demanding four toes is completely unsupported by the article. I can edit or delete this entry, but I did not want to step on anyone's toes. I was hoping that you could help me resolve this issue of misinformation by editing/deleting the entry or letting me know if it is okay for me to do so. Thanks.--Sal Paradise 23:14, 14 June 2008 (PDT)

bring back the casualties petition

After the events that happend with deleting the 5 casualty articles, me and some other users started a petition for bringing those articles back on Lostpedia. If you share our opinion on this matter, please sign the "Save The Redshirts" section on my user page. If you want you could contact other users about this or create a "Save the redshirts" section on your user page, because the goal is to get as many users to sign the petition as possible along with 6 SysOps (Admins). I would appriciate a quick respond and a sign on either my user page or User:LostCloverfield42's page. --O r h a n 9 4

Screenshot

I just came to read on your page that you have all 3 seasons in bluray. Is there anyway you can get a full resolution picture of the logo on the shark in Adrift? Thanks, --JPB. T. C. E.

Interview

I have got a redshirt of lost (Dustin) to alomst agree to a interview but a parently I need to contact a SysOp, which you are, so am I ok to do it?--Rbfskywalker 09:03, 23 June 2008 (PDT)

Email

I have sent you a number of emails, please message me if you did not receive them. --Nickb123 (Talk) 07:28, 4 August 2008 (PDT)