Welcome
Edit
Hi, welcome to Lostpedia, and thanks for your contributions!
Please feel free to look at our Help section or leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything. —Scott (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
There a reason you deleted the blooper/error for Namaste and replaced it with something completely true, but not relevant to what was already written by me? The thing about the numbers being on in 2008 when they were turned off in 2004.John Darc 21:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Uncivil language in edit summaries Edit
It's pretty easy to leave it out, so you should. Familiarize yourself with Lostpedia:General_usage_guide#Netiquette_and_basic_courtesy and LP:ATTACK, which are official policies. If you have the choice between using the word "moron" and not using it, you're going to want to go with not using it. Your better option is to talk things out on the talk pages. Okay? Happy editing, Robert K S tell me 21:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Character Appearances Edit
Hey man I noticed on the talk page for character appearances you had been opposed to removing characters with less than 5 appearances. I just proposed on the talk page that we split the article into 6 articles for each season, and add back all the minor characters. If you think this would be a good way to bring back all the minor characters it'd be great to get another vote on the talk page. Thanks dude. InflatableBombshelter 08:33, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
Libby Edit
For starters I dont appreciate you refering to me as a moron when undoing my edits I expect some courtesy on this site, secondly on libbys pg your refer me to Daves talk page so i went there and saw a vote which was 3-1 in favor of not a libby centric episode so yes there is a libby fb but it is NOT a libby centric episode if you disagree mark it for disscusion and try to get another vote going but your post at the bottom of the talk pg doesnt change the vote above it. --Czygan84 22:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously ^ weve had this disscusion before there was a vote and dave is not considered a libby centric episode waiting and making the changes long after the vote doesnt make it right if you continue to make these changes I will report you to a sysop so please stop. -- B1G CZYGS Talk Contribs 23:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Commentary Edit
It isn't necessary to talk down to people in your edit explanations.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
"The Incident, Part 1" Edit
Could you please not alter the centricity of the episode "The Incident, Part 1" please. This episode was Jacob centric. Thank you. -- Plkrtn talk contribs email 09:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
2x01 Edit
I'm happy to discuss it on the talk page. There's no need to get snippy. Furthermore, you can't say that nobody thinks it's a Desmond flashback simply because you don't. Clearly, there's at least one person. If nobody agrees with me, then I'll bow to consensus, but please don't try to disregard my opinion just because you haven't heard it before. Jimbo the Tubby talk contributions 01:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
RE:Tom Friendly Edit
Consensus is very relevant, actually. Basing a rename off of a Comic-Con video is acceptable, but doesn't automatically warrant that it's undeniable canon. The producers have previously stated that "Mr. Friendly" is his nickname because of his friendly personality he has used in the show. Does that mean that Friendly couldn't be his nickname? No, but I still am doubtful. Until the page is actually renamed (which will probably happen soon, anyway) there is no need to change his name on templates or other articles. -- CTS Talk Contribs 19:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Re:Juliet Edit
You need to learn the rules buddy. In case you missed it this site has rules everyone needs to respect. Yes we all know shes dead but these rules still apply no matter how ridiculous. IF you need proof go to the spoiler policy and read the definition of spoiler section. If this were allowed so would episode titles confirmed by producers and so would anknowledge of the new main cast but its not allowed continue making these edits and ill have to report you. -- B1G CZYGS Talk Contribs 04:11, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
- Did you read the spoiler policy??? Press releases are allowed but articles in which the producers talk about a character dying are spoilers some people dont read those articles and its not fair to them. Do 90% of us know shes dead, yes. So why ruin it for the other 10%. Your arguments make absolutely no sense. Example if the producers said in an interview that naveen andrews was going to leave the show and he will be written of as dying during the incident should that be posted on here?? No, think about users who want to stay in the dark. And im not the only one who has a problem with this -- B1G CZYGS Talk Contribs 02:38, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
Sawyer and Pierre Chang Edit
At the end of The Inicdent Parts 1 & 2, you see Chang and Sawyer talking to each other and briefly looking at each other. Is that a meeting or briefly met?--Station7 21:18, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
- In The Variable, Chang tells Daniel, "You arrived with LaFleur, I remember," which suggests that Chang and Sawyer not only have met, but know each other pretty well. --Cul-de-zack 21:35, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
- I have no clue, but I just wanted to say that it was the first time any of the original survivors had met him on screen 'cause it said that it was the first time any of the original survivors had ever met him. :P --Golden Monkey 22:06, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know that he met for the first time a survivor, but if he briefly met Sawyer in The Incident Parts 1 & 2, counts it then?--Station7 22:11, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
Random CrapEdit
I love that Random Crap. I like that.--Station7 21:24, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
Hi Edit
Hey, I saw your edit summary to Lance Wong. IDK where the names came from, but the dude who recently edited Background cast/DHARMA Initiative should know as he added them all.--Mistertrouble189 21:21, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
BackgroundEdit
You can found those names by the background actors from the Others. You can click on history so you can see who edited those names there.--Station7 23:30, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
You can find them at the Background Others list.--Station7 23:34, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
I didn't edit those names there, those names were there for months.--Station7 23:36, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
Re: Shifts Edit
The thing is, we don't know the fates of every single background survivor. There is no source, for example, that states that the "Gas Man" survived up until the flaming arrow attack. We haven't seen him after Day 1, so he might as well be dead, having been killed by the Monster or any other Island hazard at any point between Day 1 and the attack. Steve's non-returning to the Island in Season 5 could also mean that he fell off the raft and was eaten by a shark or something. In the end, they are all dead, yes, but we don't know who died during the flaming arrow attack and who died prior to it. Hence the wording. QuiGonJinnBe mindful of the Living Force... 21:57, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
Non-canon Edit
Well it's the best reason I could think of. I personally don't like the Dominique or Little girl articles too though they have some content value which kindda justifies their articles, as the info about them can not be found on any other page, especially the one about Little Girl. --Orhan94 14:53, December 29, 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah... I think Little Girl was supposed to be a Christian/Yemi/Horse/Dave type of character, a mysterious apparition or a Monster minion. --Orhan94 19:33, December 29, 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe. --Orhan94 19:41, December 29, 2009 (UTC)
Co-pilot Edit
Hi,
I just noticed your comment at Talk:Ajira Flight 316 about the co-pilot. It looks like the problem was never solved. It was a speaking role and he rates a page. I'd call him -- and his page -- "Ajira co-pilot" and let people who think they have a better idea recommend something. That's what the rename capability is for.
--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:58, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
- Never mind (grin). I just stumbled across his page.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:35, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
Unanswered Question Edit
Maybe you would like to direct me to the source of your knowledge about the bus? Until then, it is unanswered. You (and many other) are speculating. Ben 21:04, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
ugh?
i dont understand 1) why you say ugh all the time or 2) the problem with my first post - it was only an idea mate
Blogs in mainspace Edit
I plan on leaving a message with Jabrwocky7 asking him to update the welcome tool to include the link to create blogs. I agree that misplaced blogs are clogging up the mainspace. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 00:11, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
thanks im kinda of new to this thing eh wat did you think about the theroy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Easo86 (talk • contribs) 2010-02-12T02:52:20.
cool cool Edit
thanks for not crucifing me for my theroy i came up with while wacthing bram and associates got there arses wooped by smokey —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Easo86 (talk • contribs) 2010-02-12T03:10:32.
Re: The Substitute Edit
The month being October was not a theory of mine. I was just saying that all the evidence in the show at that point all pointed to October. I also said that once there is sufficient evidence for September, the date on the page should be changed. Right now, (IMO) The evidence for September, outweighs the evidence for October (Maybe Claire just got knocked up 4 weeks earlier in the sideways reality/universe/timeline... though that would mean that her child would be two completely different people in each R/U/T... but now I'm just ranting). So yeah. I think it should be changed to September (though we still don't know what date). --Mrmagic522 07:15, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
Re:Friendly Candidate Edit
Thanks for letting me know about the Comic Con memorial video. Is that canon? It just seems jarring that a nickname (based on his demeanor) would turn out to really be his name. WCFrancis 23:42, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
Re: Last appearance Edit
I would have nothing wrong with changng the last appearance but the episodes should count for each character. I found a way to make it less confusing and that is by putting a note in the triva of each character that states if a fs character made any of their appearances. Its confusing not to count the appearances then we have twice as many main charactes and so on. Noting it in the trivia seems like a good compromise but if thats not good enough for you then it needs to be discussed because right now a lot of people disagree with your stance. Not to mention you are only changing it on the characters page so half the site has different totals then the other half with a discussion this would all be resolved. -- B1G CZYGS Talk Contribs 13:40, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
- Great, I mean I get your stance but I think we should still count them since there basically the same character but we definetly need to make some sort of note. So hopefully this works for everyone. -- B1G CZYGS Talk Contribs 13:53, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
- Are you serious you agreed with me several hours ago and now your changing?? By the way im not the only one doing this there are many people adding fs appearances. The note in the trivia was a good compromise. -- B1G CZYGS Talk Contribs 21:30, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
Beef Edit
Hey Golden Monkey I just wanted to ask: Whats the beef between you and Czygan--Spoilerhater 22:09, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
Beef Edit
Ok thx
Lets end this Edit
Look we both know Im not really gonna leave this site so lets end this. The reason I dont like you is becasue your a jerk. My problem with you is that when you get in a disagreement you decide to attack users. I 100% respect your opinion but I dont respect you. In a previous dispute you attacked a user who had simply made edits based on a consensus decision [[1]] now you are going around lambasting me and saying all ive done is do harm to this site and attacking my opinion every chance you get. Ive made a hell of a lot more productive edits then you and you disrespect me every chance you get. So Ill leave you alone if you quit disrespecting me and putting down solely my comments on talk pages and in edit summaries. Secondly as for our dispute regarding appearances I took it up with User:CTS he said it should be discussed here [[2]] but since he hasnt been around since I will talk with another sysop. -- B1G CZYGS Talk Contribs 22:56, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Czygan84, "The reason I dont like you is becasue your a jerk" is not part of this complete breakfast, and not part of a civil talk page message. I commend you for taking steps to work out a personal problem with another user whom you have a disagreement with, but might I suggest this isn't the way to do it? I'll butt out now and leave you two to it, but lest either of you be tempted to escalate incivility by trading insults, know that I'll be watching and the next user to take an insulting tone will be getting a temporary ban. Robert K S tell me 00:11, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
RE:Main Character non-appearances Edit
Now that I think about it, the "#ifexist"s do make it an expensive function, but it's called more times in the crossref template which makes it less noticable in the ep template. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 22:35, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
Reports Edit
Hello I noticed you recently reported me for partcipating in an edit war. I feel you completely misrepresented me. You stated I changed the images without discussion they were reverted and i changed them again. This was not the case I did make the changes without discussion which was my mistake the user then reverted some but others he changed to new pictures he had choosen, I then simply reverted them back to the original ones that were up before i changed them. If I cant put up new ones without discussion why can he, right. Anyway I understand we have our differences but i hope you will not be out for getting me banned or something. Hopefully this was a honest mistake I do agree with you a lot and would like to move on. If it was a mistake in the future may i suggest you check more thoroughly before filing a report as you may get some info mixed up. -- B1G CZYGS Talk Contribs 04:19, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
Re: RogerEdit
Hi, I haven't come here to start trouble, but I have just spotted the message on my talk page. I haven't had internet for a week, so I'm only replying now. First of all, I didn't make up any rule regarding families in the flash sideways portal. I felt that Roger didn't belong in the family section, I posted it on the talk page and I moved him around the portal. It was like this for a week until you moved him and revived the discussion. I am happy to leave him where he is now because the community voted for it. I would have moved him back myself if someone had a good argument, but no one did for a week. I am not the sort of person who goes against the community and makes there own decisions on the site content. I did leave a message in the code on the portal letting people know that there was a discussion if they wanted to change it. I also felt that posting it on my talk page was inappropriate and should have stayed on the portal discussion. It comes across as pompous and childish. I am aware that this message is doing the same damage to my reputation, but I wanted to let you know how it feels to have something character diminishing posted on your page. Thank you. Blender83 18:14, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
Locke Edit
Why did you edit lockes appearances. These have always counted changing them now and ignoring consensus, cmon. Simply becuase one user ignores consensus doesnt mean you need to as well. You know a consensus was reached. -- B1G CZYGS Talk Contribs 21:54, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
Re: centricity of S6 Edit
Yes the centricity is specific, but the point is that it's centric to multiple characters (when taken as a whole-which it was produced and written as, if not aired as)-and so is LA X. --Golden Monkey 22:53, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
- Pilot #1 has a clear Jack centricity; #2 is Kate & Charlie. If LA X #1 & #2 mirrored that, then I'd agree, but it doesn't. Eps #3-5 of S6 happen to mirror eps #3-5 of S1; 3 eps out of 18 = 17% match. Given that small correlation, methinks it's a bit of a stretch to say: "there's a pattern!" or at least a pattern worthy of pointing out. It is entirely possible the producers made some comment to the effect that the setup was deliberate that I missed... in which case I would also agree. Spiral77 19:37, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
You make me laughtingEdit
About your ratings: There is no season six. Hahaha. That's so funny. I just wanna say this.--Station7 13:32, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
Pierre Edit
Do you have a concensus on Pierre's status? If you do, provide a link; if you don't, consider this a warning: Don't threaten action.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:55, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
Take a week off.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:14, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
... Edit
Haha. Okay, great. Good job. --SethFlight815 02:51, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
Thank You! Edit
Thank You, for posting the Spoiler Alert on "The New Man in Charge" Article and Theory pages. I know you don't agree, with it being too much information, thus a spoiler for some of us. I just want you to know I do appreciate you posting the alert in spite of our disagreement. My personal apologies to you, I think I was a bit sarcastic in my response to you on the discussion page. Thanks Again! --Just Sayin' 16:54, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
