Wikia

LinksEdit

Here are the links you asked for:

Episode Rating: http://darkufo.blogspot.com/2008/03/episode-league-table-week-5-update.html

LOST Season 4 Ratings: http://darkufo.blogspot.com/2008/02/episode-405-constant-ratings.html

-- Nusentinsaino talk contribs email 18:35, 3 March 2008 (PST)

Thank you! :D --CharlieReborn 07:51, 21 July 2008 (PDT)

Welcome to Lostpedia!Edit

Hey, there, CharlieReborn. When you post messages to talk pages, please remember to sign your remarks by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thanks and happy editing! Robert K S (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2008 (PST)

Ji YeonEdit

The year of dragon, I didn't "redo" my revision, but sorry buddy--we are meant to think that it is the year of the dragon. Check the trivia section. Peace. -- c blacxthornE t 12:40, 16 March 2008 (PDT)

On first viewing, when you see he says "In the year of the dragon", you think Jin just thinks that guy is an idiot... not that it's the year of the dragon. of course it was put there to imply the date. but only imply, not confirm. --CharlieReborn 22:34, 16 March 2008 (PDT)

Question about UQ removal Edit

Hi CharlieReborn. You removed my unanswered question from "Meet Kevin Johnson" without an explanation:

How was the Island "not allowing" Michael to commit suicide?

I was wondering how this doesn't apply as an unanswered question. I'm relatively new to Lostpedia, so I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt... I was just hoping you could explain what was invalid about it. Thanks! Only 31 more days! :) --Michaelisinthecoffin 07:57, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

Yeah sorry for not explaining, it's just that this question pops up every hour or so. we had a very detailed scene this ep - a close up of the gun when michael pulls the trigger, the firing pin is working. then a close up of the bullets, not one missing and there is no dent in any of them. and revolvers dont even jam. what is left to explain? we saw what happened, it's magical - it's not like we're gonna get a sceintific explianation. Cheers --CharlieReborn 08:12, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

In the words of Desmond, "No worries". :) That makes sense. I'm willing to accept that and leave the UQ out, but purely conversationally between you and me: On your note of it being "magical", do you think that we won't get any explanation? Perhaps something about the "course-correcting" that Ms. Hawking referred to... maybe Michael couldn't kill himself because he needed to do something in the future? What do you think? --Michaelisinthecoffin 09:49, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

I think this is a valid UQ. It's a major mystery of the show, and there is reason to expect a more thorough explanation about this mystery. Robert K S (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

I thought it seemed valid, at least according to the Lostpedia UQ manual. However, I'm not claiming ownership of it or anything, and I'm open to discussion. CharlieReborn, what do you think? Obviously I won't include my possible answer if I were to put the question back up, but does that seem plausible as an answer the show could give? If you agree with that, does it seem reasonable to allow it to be classified as a UQ? --Michaelisinthecoffin 13:34, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

Ok you're right. they might go into detail about what kind of "magic" that is. so it is a UQ --CharlieReborn 07:57, 25 March 2008 (PDT)

Cool, thanks CharlieReborn! 30 more days!!! --Michaelisinthecoffin 09:41, 25 March 2008 (PDT)

IRC award Edit

Congratulations! You've got a big shiny reward for the wonderful cookiemonster bot.

		IRC Award
		User:CharlieReborn
		This user has been awarded the "IRC Award" for making a significant contribution to Lostpedia's IRC Chat channel: Development of the cookiemonster bot

Stick it on your userpage! --Blueeagle islander 22:12, 8 October 2008 (PDT)

Wikia designEdit

Hey, I saw you're pretty knowledgeable when it comes to designing a wikia, so I was wondering if you could do a small design for a wikia I started working on? Thanks in advance, LOST-ObiDanKenobi 03:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Theories Pages Edit

Hi! I appreciate any user who makes pages cleaner and consise, but it seems you really took a knife to the Theories Page for Jughead. Some theories were repeated, but it seems that you removed others completly, which had not been answered in the course of the show. The theories page usually has broader latitude for posting and opining, than the episode pages.

--Lanpesci 10:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and combined some theories and made some spelling corrections along the lines I think you were going for. Cheers!

--Lanpesci 10:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Which theories are you referring to that I removed completely? I think I only kept the actual theory out of each one and removed the repeats. --CharlieReborn 10:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, concerning your following edits, all you seem to have done is first undo mine, and then in this edit, capitalize "Dharma" and move a theory as it was to a different place in the same section. Please do not revert me before discussing it. Thanks --CharlieReborn 10:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Enhanced caption slashes Edit

Please don't forget to sign your talk page messages. That edit summary was not meant to be hostile to you as an editor, but yes, in general I am (and all wiki editors should be!) very wary of changes that affect large amounts of content, bucking and/or blithely ignoring long-established conventions, unsensible as they may seem at first glance, without prior discussion. I remember the first time I got my knuckles rapped for doing this on Wikipedia. I began an ill-conceived recapitalization campaign not realizing that conventions for such had already been long established in the MoS. My edits were unceremoniously reversed and I got a very polite talk page message. In the case of the captions, many of them no longer read grammatically without the slashes, because the captioners never bothered to include commas at the end of lines. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Line breaks in talk messages Edit

I understand your desire to have line breaks in talk messages. It's less of an issue on other wikis as it is here, where we get a lot of first time users signing up to post an unsigned talk message. I spend about half of my sysop time just doing cleanup on talk pages--signing them with the {{unsigned}} template and posting what I hope are friendly reminders to the talk pages of those users who need a little reminding. As to your argument on the point of law, the spirit of the law is to not modify others' remarks so as to put words in their mouths or make presumptive corrections they did not intend. Here, I am trying to clarify that all the remarks are yours, and not that you have posted a remark that follows several unsigned comments. I know it's an inconvenience to be limited to one paragraph per message. Perhaps you can adopt using some other symbol to indicate a paragraph break? Robert K S (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want, we can take this up on one of the policy talk pages. I'd be fine with a new rule that states that if a user's talk page message includes multiple paragraphs, the user must make it clear that each paragraph is that user's, either by signing each paragraph or by some other means. Robert K S (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand the need for clarity. But I don't see how it might cause confusion; when someone posts a message on a talk page he is likely to notice an unsigned message above his, that makes it look like they wre both written by him. I suggest the policy be updated to point out the option of using {{unsigned}}.

Worst case, a reply is made mistakenly to the wrong person, and the replier gets corrected. --CharlieReborn 01:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I'd love to have your input about my suggestions at Lostpedia:Ideas. As a fellow Wikipedian and as a sysop, you can help get things moving. --CharlieReborn 01:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(moved) I'm replying to your immediate above point, and because I'm a new user who doesn't understand wikis, I'm posting my response in between yours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robert K S (talk • contribs) .

You said you're already adding {{unsigned}} and editing the page for stuff like grouping messages, can't we just do this? It's only reasonable, considering a whole wiki is limited to one paragraph per message because of this minor problem. --CharlieReborn 02:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(moved) It was a hassle to move that remark and add the {{unsigned}} template, wasn't it? I do it numerous times a day, just to keep things tidy. Now, I don't have to do this. I could just let the talk pages become incomprehensible piles of unsigned interstitial messages. But I try to do my part. When I get reverted and scolded, I admit I'm a bit dissuaded. If you promise to patrol the talk pages and do the hunting down of misplaced messages, and the unsign'ing, and the friendly pleasesign'ing, then as far as I'm concerned, you can have special dispensation and use all the paragraph breaks you want. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robert K S (talk • contribs) .

First off, can you stop using this discussion as an example? I got your point, and that's not helping. Now look, it's not that I don't appricate your work on these matters, I get it, its annoying, its work, etc. But I'm suprised I need to tell you that these are the things admins are for. As a sysop you were assigned to help orginize the wiki, you said that yourself, but as long as you're enforcing this rule, you're doing just the opposite. Besides, its nearly the same amount of work. Also, I haven't seen any community discussion about this rule. Hell, maybe if you explain the situation, everyone will agree that instead of finding where the message is suppose to be, you should just delete it and inform the poster. I know I'll agree to that.

On a side note, if these things bother you so much, you can turn to Wikia and ask them to assign a bot for Lostpedia to deal with these problems. That's what they're here for, provide hosting and extensibility. --CharlieReborn 02:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, getting a signbot isn't a matter of flipping a switch. I asked the developer of Wikipedia's SineBot if he's ever seen one on another wiki, and he said no. Creating and running such a thing would take resources this wiki doesn't have. What we have now instead is you, since you so kindly volunteered to be our signage patrol. :-) Robert K S (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL... I didn't volunteer, you just suggested it --CharlieReborn 18:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Tone Edit

Your tone in the Lostpedia:Ideas discussion is becoming less idea-oriented and more personal. Please keep the discussions civil and not personal. Thank you. -- Sam McPherson T C E 19:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you referring to specifically? I'm criticing Lostpedia, how is that not civil? In case you forgot, its the page that was made to do that. Lostpedia:Ideas is bound to be a bit more stormy than regular talk pages, ideas are getting proposed, disputed, rejected. It's only natural my tone would be more aggressive, and I stand by what I wrote. --CharlieReborn 19:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

unblock Edit

I misinterpreted your intent on the Chat article due to the swearing in the edit comments. Jabberwock talk contribs email - 06:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Uhh what now? I was blocked? You're a loose cannon, you know that? --CharlieReborn 19:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

How about undoing your revert while you're at it?! or are you too busy banning other contributers and stalking conversations on #lostpedia like a creep? --CharlieReborn 19:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)