I noticed that a lot of your recent edits on various Lost articles are speculation and original research. (Example:It is also theorized that this 'sickness', if it indeed exists, could be in a physical sense, or in a mental/emotional sense, and may be some sort of way that the Island "weeds out" those that genuinely don't belong on it. You don't know that.) We're just supposed to report on what we already know, not make guesses as to what the information might mean.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was of the belief that on fictional cases, we are granted more leeway on subjects. So in that case, the "Sickness", Rousseau was vague about the particulars of the disease, but phobia and mental problems were mentioned and thus, it opens the door that the Sickness, based on the fact that none of the castaways in the time spent on the Island seems to have contracted this disease, even after contact with the Others, seems reasonable to assume that the Sickness may be something that does what i have described. We hsould probably put this in the DISCUSSION part of hte article so everyone can chime in on it. Thanks for the feedback, Whippletheduck (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not continue to add original research to the article This Place is Death. You are also engaged in an edit war, regarding the original research. You have been reverted four times by multiple editors and if you continue to edit war, you will be reported and most likely blocked, based on your previous history of tendentious editing. Thank you. --Jackieboy87 (talk·contribs) 14:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
after reading [[1]], then what Jacky was talking about makes more sense after reading that. The problem is that I was totally unaware of the SYNTH rule until well after it had escalated to an edit war between us, and at no point was that rule made to my attention until after he had reported it as edit warring when if he had sent that link like that other guy did, then I would have said "Oh, OK". The impression I got was that first using the Wikipedia episode summary's were not sufficient sourcing, so I switched to the ABC's offical Lost Episode summary believing that was sufficient and when Jacky continued to edit it, it seemed he was the one in error. Once I saw the SYNTH rule, obviously what Jacky was trying to accomplish makes sense now. 24 hours then, fine. Now would I have to use both the Episode Summary's AND something secondary that cites the continuity error when it does get addressed, or do I just use the source that cites the continuity error?
Decline reason:
It seems you are aware of edit warring though, looking at your block log. We are in agreement then, 24 hours is a reasonable block. Kevin (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Agreed, what I was looking into doing was more commenting on what was said/concurring more then I actually was appealing, I've made that mistake before. Is there a more direct way to say "I'm OK with teh block, but just want a few things on the record" way of doing it? Whippletheduck (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to note that the information about synthesis is in the no original research policy, where I directed you three times during our conflict. Also, you have directed others there in the past.[2] It is beyond me how you were unaware of a policy that you have told others to follow in the past. --Jackieboy87 (talk·contribs) 03:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that your edits have a habit of being unintentionally vague or confusing in the interest of accuracy, an odd contradiction. But I too appreciate someone who likes to keep the pages updated. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with such statements is that you get into speculative territory, and Lost isn't exactly helpful in this regard. It's better to be accurate per the current canon rather than make a grey area for future reveals. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. Dialog establishes that the island is the size it is. It's not our problem if the producers didn't do the research and messed up their fictional measurements. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You consistently seem to misuse apostrophes in your writing, and multiple corrections don't seem to have been noticed by you. You do not use the apostrophe s ('s) for plural words. Apostrophe s identifies possession ("The guardian's hammer was broken."), or used as a shortening of is ("He's running away."), not as a plural of a singular term ("The Other's are over there."). Plural would be "Others", no apostrophe used. Please remember this in the future. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 21:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine but that is why everyone is allowed to edit here at wikipedia, right? Also, your second sentence you wrote to me? The one which starts with "Apostrophe" failed to have the apostrophe in it. It was also a run-on sentence and should have been broken up with periods. Whippletheduck (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3RR counts over a single day, not three days. We have not reverted at that frequency yet, though now that you've admitted you're willing to it makes my job a lot easier. It's not a matter of it not being speculation, it's you insisting on making everything look like a question for no apparent reason. What is said is said and that's all that needs to be noted here. It isn't our job to point out that it may or may not have been a lie. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out that he told two different stories is fine, but when you start questioning everything in the text then all you're doing is confusing the reader. All you need to do is lay out the facts. It does the reader a disservice when you start adding your own opinions, disguised as reasonable doubt or not, into the text. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may not think that's what you're doing, but it is what you are doing. You are stating the obvious in such a way as to discredit both statements without actually doing it. It's not ok. All that matters are the facts, and the reader can draw their own conclusions based on those facts. The only facts are that Ben said one thing to Locke and another to Sun, both of which are noted. Therefore, the reader must automatically assume one is a lie, without us having to tell them such for no good reason.
As for you "if Locke is the only case" part, this again is your own original research. We know of two people who were dead and now aren't: Christian and Locke. By all rights they are both alive and not ghosts or some nonsense. That is the fact as we have been given, but I'll compromise on this and leave it out. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The statement about Ben doesn't need clarification. It is what it is and no more than that. Your clarification is only an attempt to put an opinion on it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you keep failing to grasp is that all of that is your opinion. Ordnance is a word that can be defined simply. It is weapons, supplies, things meant for combat purposes. Nothing more, nothing less. By saying "weapons system", you're trying to insert your own theory, which isn't allowed (WP:OR). You can theorize all you want, and that's fine, just don't do it in the articles. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should have adopted such a mantra from the beginning, and clearly now you're just upset because you aren't getting to put your theories on the pages anymore. You can speculate all you like, but don't do it in articles. If you think there's chemical weapons at the Arrow, that's fine, maybe the show will prove you right. As soon as you start forwarding that idea in the article it becomes original research, and as I know you've quoted that very policy to people before, you have absolutely no excuse to forget it exists now. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 04:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for your claim that I'm "stealing" your work, I wouldn't use a summary of "readd" if I meant to pass it off as my own, would I? Not to mention you're still ignoring your improper use of apostrophes ("meet's"), you don't use quotes when adding episode titles, and other mistakes. Simply put, your work needs to be checked. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 04:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as my security detail went, at the time I wrote that and the 'unspecified duties for Dr chang', i was doing that at the time when that was all we had to go on (and I probably should not have put that Dr Chang comment as all I had was the "next week caption" where it showed Miles working for Dr Chang. I agree that I don't know ALL the stuff regarding Wikipedia editing (didn't know you were supposed to use "" with episode titles.) I don't mind clean ups and corrections, but a lot of core things I write meet standards and you override them (and occasionally rewrite them as your own, I am sure if I go to lostipedia I'll see it there too), which is actually kinda flattering. I realize your looking to find the best edit, it is just that it comes off at times that you are trying to stop in many cases legitimate edits on my part via rules lawyering. Whippletheduck (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't edit at Lostpedia. If it's copied there, then maybe we both should be flattered. I am nopt trying to stop your edits, merely trying to reign in your desire to speculate. You accuse me of speculation in the Dharma article, but if you weren't running on rage at your own speculation being reverted, then you'd see it is not. These are details we've been given in the show. Incident hasn't happened in 1977. Incident happened by 1980. Therefore, it is a verifiable conclusion that the incident took place in the years between. There is a difference between drawing a logical conclusion based on data and speculating. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That you refuse to see the difference does not change the fact. What you put does not meet the standards, and I'm not the only person that has told you this. Your chemical weapons theory has no basis, same with Rosseau being insane rather than the sickness being real (which, admittedly, is quite likely). Giving a simple time frame based on dates is not the same as your speculation. It is only a statement in fact. The only reason you're complaining is because you're miffed that your speculations are getting removed. Take a step back and look at it logically. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not speculation to state the definition of a word. Ordnance means combat supplies, pure and simple. It does not mean "chemical weapons delivery system". That's your opinion. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 15:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quit being so paranoid. This is Wikipedia. Shit gets edited. Deal with it. No one is claiming anything as "their work" because this is a collaborative project. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C)
Except it is not speculation, you only call it that because you're bent out of shape at someone calling you on your own behavior. The purpose of the camp was to make them look weaker and more primitive than they actually are. Not speculation to say it, as Kate point it out when they are captured. As for what I edit, it isn't trivial stuff, half the time it's your consistently poor grammar. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, it's a temporary camp because they built it as part of a ruse. Permanent would imply consistent use. Second, the fact remains that Kate figures out that they're misrepresenting themselves as more primitive than they are. Third, you're the one ranting on my page, typing in all capital letters, and using excessive punctuation, so don't go accusing me of yelling without admitting to your own behavior. Also, and I'll bold this just so you get the message, where am I claiming this as my work? In case you hadn't noticed, every edit is recorded. I can't possibly claim it as mine, because anyone can read the history and see it. Neither I nor anyone else can claim it as sole property, so get off this obsession with "your work" being stolen because it has no basis in reality. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else made the references to Faraday's death and I wasn't concerned about removing it. I wanted to ensure that some of the deeper meanings in the episode are identified so some readers of that article can appreciate some of the depth that is put in the show. Things like that are usually glossed over (transcendentalism is another common theme in other episodes) and so it's good for the viewers who want to get more out of the plot beyond what is literally said by the characters.
Since I'm getting tired of the edit warring, I'm going to point out why you're mistaken about the Others.
Tom left the Island before the submarine was destroyed and was back to the island before it was destroyed. He was playing football with Jack about two episodes earlier. The scene with Michael is a flashback to an earlier point in time.
Harper vanishes only when they stop paying attention for a moment, and this is only good stealth as far as the show is concerned.
Jacob the magic ageless man is the only point you're right on, but he's magic and isn't really an other.
The freighter could have taken months to find the island, while Tom had a straight trip back there. Point is, he did not leave the island after the sub was destroyed. Jacob isn't relevant to the Others. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You act as if they show types out the date at the top of the screen. Michael was off the Island for a long time, long enough to go through several suicide attempts at least. Fact is, what we saw was a flashback, so from any point between Jack agreeing to be Ben's doctor (which I think is the last scene short of playing footbal with Tom), to the aforementioned destruction of the sub, Tom had time to leave, be off-Island for a few days, then head on back while Michael took the boat. You're trying to make an issue out of nothing. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I kept Harper as a compromise. Your thing about Tom is entirely original research. Also, as I have pointed out, he was on the freaking island when the sub was destroyed, so you're completely making up this nonsense about him coming back afterward. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which. Is. Your. Original. Research. Get it? No, that was not the only opportunity. There were plenty of opportunities. There was all the time Jack was captured, which we do not see most of. Tom could have easily made his way off the island and back. You're trying to make an issue out of nothing. It's a flashback. There is no hard timetable, no specific point when it must occur, nothing. Quit trying to fill the void between seasons with idle speculation. There is no contradiction, so stop trying to make one up. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 16:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the DVDs, so I can't really pause on anything, but if the timing is as you note it would mean that there's no peculiar timing in any of their actions. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It seems that we have a different understanding of what is original research. WP:PRIMARY reads: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." and later "Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and Verifiability, and would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for that material.".
In our case "the Island (seems) to call people" because... we "witnessed" it or we think we witnessed it. Can we verify this by a published source like a book or a magasine? Do you have an interview of someone of Lost's crew that confirms it? If we do, then we have to add it. If not, it's obvious that we are based on primary sources. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keamy was on-screen for literally five seconds (count them) in "Dead is Dead". He appeared as something of a vision to Ben and had no dialogue. His appearance was not memorable and did not add anything to his character. His appearance is a reminder of why Ben feels the way that he does in the episode. And he was actually not credited because it was reused footage. Just because a character appears, it does mean that the appearance should or will be noted in the relevant Wikipedia article. The time that Frank happened upon Omar installing the dead man's trigger on a shirtless Keamy's arm is also not noted. The time that Michael saw Keamy target practicing is not mentioned and that was a far bigger scene, as it previewed Keamy's role in the post-strike episodes; however, it does not tell Wikipedia readers anyting that they need to know that cannot be taken from other episodes. The articles are not substitutes for watching the episodes. –thedemonhogtalk • edits08:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, a quick line to thank you for the note about archiving the myth talk page. I still don't know how to keep it from happening again without manually upkeeping it. Some of the tools like the archive bots are way beyond my understanding. again thanks for all the contributes you continually make to the lost articles and the fortitude for presenting your POVs on the discussion pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B.s.n.R.N. (talk • contribs) 11:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I think there needs to be consensus, up or down, about her "die middle america" controversy, since that seems to be one of the points of contention here. I know that Megan Fox supporters don't want it in the article because it makes her look bad, which is true; but the fact is, she said what she said, she has never denied saying it or claimed she was taken out of context. It seems to have largely been glossed over for whatever reasons. I like looking at Megan enough to look past the article, but concede it was a pretty ridiculous thing to say regardless and can see why Megan haters might want it in. The bottom line is we are not here to give her an wiki that is completely favorable to her, it needs to include the good and the bad. There are people that probably would applaud her for what she said, is another thing to be mentioned. So for Good Article status, I think that controversy section should be restored."
...twice to the GA review. Please, I deleted it the first time because it is of no current relevance to my GA review (e.g. I haven't brought up the issue). If you feel it should be included then discuss it, by all means, on the talk page of Megan Fox. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your <ref></ref> links don't work on talk pages - you should just put single square brackets [http://whatever.com] around your links. Kevin (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're at 3RR on Megan Fox, and you've been reverted by three different editors. Consensus seems to be against you, as per the talk page discussion and the discussion at WP:BLP. Please stop adding the section, and let's continue talking it over on the appropriate talk pages to reach a consensus on this matter. Dayewalker (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see I you have been blocked in the past for WP:3RR. You should know that 3 reverts per 24h is not an entitlement, and you are likely to be blocked regardless of the exact edit timing if you continue to revert at Megan Fox while there is no consensus for you to do so. I suspect a longer block than 24h might be imposed. Kevin (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no 'deal'. No consensus has been reached that it's notable at all to warrant even a sentence. This has been discussed ad nauseum on the BLP noticeboard and you're the only person who thinks it should stay. I think this has more to do with you not liking Fox because you're a conservative more than anything else.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what else there is to say about the politics, except that you seem to be taking Megan Fox's comments personally, which would indicate that you fall under the group that she poked fun at. And like I've said before, I don't care about Megan Fox as a person or an actress--I think she's overrated, and that there are far better actresses that deserve attention. The reason why I'm reverting your edits is because writing a good article should trump personal opinion.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, don't bother leaving me messages on my talk page if you're not going to bother to be productive with the situation. They're not going to solve anything, and I'm going to ignore them from here on out. Throwing little jabs and insults isn't going to help your cause, and it's just wasting both our time. Thanks.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sighs* I'm certainly willing to 'debate' the inclusion of your personal crusade against Megan in the article on the proper pages (like the article's talk page, the BLP board, etc), just not with you on my talk page, as most of the other editors aren't present and the consensus won't be reached. So what's the point?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you are no doubt aware, the three revert rule is not an entitlement to revert three times per day. It is harmful to Wikipedia and in violation of policy to edit war, and to attempt to preserve your own preferred version of an article by reverting rather than discussion. Please allow the RfC on the disputed material and the associated discussion to run their course and do not continue to revert. I notice that you have not made any reverts since being reported to WP:AN3 which is a step in the right direction. Please do not make any further reverts. If you make any reverts within the next 24 hours, I will block you for edit warring, for a minimum of one week. I also ask that you refrain from making more than one revert to the Megan Fox for at least the next week. If you make more than one, I will seriously consider a block for edit warring. In any case, have a nice day. Cool3 (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue really isn't whether you're right or wrong (I know that sounds dumb but it's true). The issue is whether or not you are engaged in an edit war. All I am asking you to do is slow down and seek consensus; I myself have formed no opinion on whether or not the quote belongs. Cool3 (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An edit that is sourced, verifiable, and consistent with all other Wikipedia policies can't simply be frozen out of an article because a group of editors is opposed to it. As I understand the dispute in which you are engaged, however, the primary concern is whether or not the material you are inserting violates WP:WEIGHT. Whether or not it is a violation is not particularly simple to judge. As a result, a discussion is needed to establish consensus. The RfC is in progress, and hopefully it will bring in a number of editors from around the project to help resolve this issue. If in the end, you think that your edits are being suppressed in contravention of policy, please let me know and I will see what I can do. Until then, as I said before, will it kill anyone if the article goes without the quote for a few days while this is resolved? Cool3 (talk) 04:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to TheForce.Net, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
