User talk:LOSTonthisdarnisland/archive1

From Lostpedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Archive

Please don't edit this page


Editing Articles

We all appreciate your work on Lostpedia, but when you want to edit the whole article instead of one subheading - you should use the top edit link instead of the one in the respective subheading, also remember to use preview button to check your edits before you save and tick minor edit when appropriate. Thanks! --skks 00:56, 11 May 2006 (PDT)

Not sure what you are up about because it isn't possible to edit the entire article without using that top edit link. Responded on your talk page. LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:01, 11 May 2006 (PDT)
Hmm, that is exactly what I said. Use the top edit button when you want to edit the whole article, when you want to edit a subheading - use the subheading edit button. --skks 01:03, 11 May 2006 (PDT)
Responded on talk. LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:09, 11 May 2006 (PDT)
Yes, use the top edit button when editing the whole article. When editing a subheading - use the subheading edit button. If you edit each subheading at a time, the recent changes list and the article history gets flooded with your edits, like what happened fex. here. That's 13 consecutive edits of the same article in a bit over 30 mins, which means you spent on an average a little over 2 minutes between every time you pressed save. This is the last time I'm going to repeat myself. HAND :) --skks 01:20, 11 May 2006 (PDT)
Your comment was obvious, as I said, because there is no other way to edit the entire article. The numerous edits were due to discovery of numerous errors and need for reformatting, found necessary only after the article had been saved each time. Most *were* marked as minor. LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:46, 11 May 2006 (PDT)

Remember to use that preview before you save! :) --skks 10:26, 18 May 2006 (PDT)

When you edit the article 10 times within 10 minutes - the preview function hasn't been used much. I shouldn't have to keep telling you this constantly. Within the last few hours the article has been edited more than a hundred times between you and peephole, I've given the same advice to him/her. Try to take the hint and maybe I won't need to give it to you anymore. Thanks! --skks 10:39, 18 May 2006 (PDT)

That's just mean...

I discovered the movie by myself and I swear I screamed to the top of my lungs. Then I decided to utilize the movie and let everyone else enjoy all this fun. Hope you enjoyed the fright. remember, there's a disclaimer, so I'm not liable for your heart attack! ;P †††GodEmperorOfHell††† --20:29, 12 May 2006 (PDT)

They should put a trick like this in one of the lost experience commercials, when everyone's staring intently at the screen waiting for the next clue. --Ernest 20:42, 12 May 2006 (PDT)
LOL. That would be hilarious! :D LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:44, 13 May 2006 (PDT)

Sig

Once upon a time I thought you had to be one of the big shots to have a personalized sigs, then I got my own. You can see the source of mine, it's much more complete, you can access my talk page and my contributions. Very practical for us sysops. Now it has been cheapened. damn! ;P. To sign I use a very practical Firefox extension called 'Clippings' that allows me to paste predefined text by alt-clicking and selecting. I also recommend the Wikipedia toolbar (also firefox extension) where you can configure the signature buttin to include your sig. To include date I simply use {{User:GodEmperorOfHell/sig}} --~~~~~ †††GodEmperorOfHell††† --11:39, 13 May 2006 (PDT)

I'll be honest, I wanted to be cool like you so i used you sig as a template for mine, Thanks. image: kman.png       talk contribs                   19:43, 17 May 2006 (PDT)

typos

No problem! I hope I wasn't stepping on your toes or anything. unsigned by Ernest

hacking article

What was the matter with it?

Oh well, the rest of this site is so out of date it's not usefull to people actually playing the game.unsigned by Brian

sorry bout that

Hey, as I said in my edit summaries (I think!) I was trying to format the dates so that they would automatically sort themselves into order in categories. I forgot about 05-05 being confusing when read internationally. Thanks. Jengod 21:46, 31 May 2006 (PDT)

Screw those international folks. They should learn to speak English! ;) —XSG 12:45, 1 June 2006 (PDT)
Ha! You mean 'American'.  ;) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:16, 1 June 2006 (PDT)

HEY!!! It happens that three of the Almighty Sysops are International Users!!!! Do you want us cursing in our native languages, ustedes hijos desobedientes, chamacos perros! --†††GodEmperorOfHell††† 20:27, 1 June 2006 (PDT)

BawaaHaaHaa! See XSG? I have three Sysops to protect me :D ;) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:31, 1 June 2006 (PDT)
Sad that it is that you need three Sysops for protection... —XSG 02:32, 2 June 2006 (PDT)
I may be a wimp, but I'm a wimp that can write the date properly ;) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:06, 2 June 2006 (PDT)

Autosig

Hey, I noticed you are signing talk pages with lines of code for your sig. Could you take a look at Help:Signatures#How to create a custom signature and create an autosig? This way, it only takes up the space of four tildes in the edit window. If you need any help let me know. Thanks. -- Graft   talk   contributions  10:29, 28 February 2008 (PST)

Still had it the old way. Better? -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:33, 28 February 2008 (PST)
Cool, thanks! -- Graft   talk   contributions  10:35, 28 February 2008 (PST)
No worries -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:35, 28 February 2008 (PST)

theories

Why did you delete all the theories on Meet Kevin Johnson? I was trying to add something to one, but you blanked the page. --Gluphokquen Gunih ▲ 03:18, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

(answered on Gluphokquen's talk page) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:27, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

8-2+1 = 6?

If that's how you want to interpret it. Jack said, "Only eight of us survived the crash.... [Kate] tried to save the other two..." I think that's a little different than saying "7 people and a fetus survived the crash. Two died and one was born." Robert K S (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2008 (PDT)

(answered on his talk: Regardless of what you choose to call it, Aaron did not die in the crash, making him one of the O6, and therefore one of the 8! Anything else involves mental gymnastics and looking for error where none exists. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 00:46, 23 March 2008 (PDT))

Revert rule?

Sorry, could you explain what that is please? --CTS 20:07, 1 April 2008 (PDT)

Alright, thanks. I'll try and keep out of trouble :) --CTS 21:41, 1 April 2008 (PDT)

Removing the Mindf*ck page like you did

Well, that was incredibly silly of you. You know full well that doing that is considered vandalism. As such you've been given a short ban. Hopefully you will think twice before removing content from a page like you did.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  06:54, 2 April 2008 (PDT)

Since you told us "If people are passionate enough about removing this article then they can do that", a block (especially one where I couldn't respond here or email the Admin through LP) appears to be a nasty response to someone who dared to oppose your way of thinking. You said, "Make this page redundant" and I made it redundant by properly moving the information to the other article. I marked it for deletion so that you or another SysOp could take care of it; I didn't move the page, as you alleged. (Thank you so much for ending my birthday on a lovely note, BTW. I really didn't appreciate it at all.) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:30, 2 April 2008 (PDT)

Welcome back. I can't believe that happened. Anyway, in an attempt to address the actual issue and steer away from the ego trip going on at MF, can I draw your attention to Talk:Plot twist. With a bit of discussion and collaboration, hopefully that article can be developed further to render MF undeniably redundant.--TechNic|talk|conts 19:40, 2 April 2008 (PDT)

Welcome back and happy bday :). That was a completely biased ban. He said to make the page redundant, and that's exactly what you did. He went back on what he said. Glad your back. --CTS 19:46, 2 April 2008 (PDT)

Hey, let's move this to your talk page.

You asked why not to remove redundant information. However, you missed the clause before "you don't remove redundant information." I had stated "If you want to make a page redundant, you don't remove redundant information." Removing the redundant information makes the page no longer redundant. If you leave it on there, there is a better chance that it will be shown that the page is useless, as all the information is included on another page, as opposed to showing a blank page. And also, don't try to deny that you blanked out the page. You got everything but the delete tag. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  20:16, 2 April 2008 (PDT)

Okay, (keeping this sounding calm, hopefully) blanking a page in vandalism means to remove absolutely everything in a childish prank. I resented, and still resent, that label being applied to me, an editor that has been here since 2006, editing in good faith. What I did was move the three remaining entries to their proper place. Without Lost examples that fit the category in a separate article, there was no need for the article, therefore, it became redundant (excess; more than is needed, desired, or required definition). The instructions were to make it redundant, which I did. I took careful time to see if the entries were already on plot twist, added the one that was a plot twist to the proper season, moved the two that were still questionable under mindf*ck, and got rid of the link to the article. Then I removed the now unnecessary information, and marked it like we mark any picture, with the delete tag. "If you want to make a page redundant, you don't remove redundant information" makes no sense whatsoever to me in the context you attibute to it, I'm sorry. Again, note that the permission to make it redundant was coupled with the statement "If people are passionate enough about removing this article then they can do that", i.e., make it redundant (excess) and remove it was how it was read by me, and others. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:26, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
If your goal is to make something redundant, removing the redundant information makes the article useful. Just saying, it was some advice. However, on blanking the page, that was needless. Even if the page was not needed, you do not erase all of it. This has happened on several redundant pages that have been created. Even though the article existed elsewhere (under a different name), the page was not blanked, so that users voting on the delete could see the content of the page. A blank page proves nothing to someone looking to submit an opinion. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  20:31, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
Okay, what you say here now makes sense. I can see the value of removing just the three things, and marking it for deletion. However, the delete tag kept getting removed with comments that they refused to discuss it, and the blocking editor said what he said that led to my actions. If my actions had been reversed, and a simple statement questioning my actions had been made to me on here, leading to a discussion similar to this one, I would have understood it better and not been so upset last night. I've given my reasons why I thought I was following directions, so I won't bother repeating them, but an assumption of good faith should have been applied here toward me, if for no other reason than I've made contributions in good faith for a long time and deserved that level of respect. Instead when the blocking editor, on the other side of the discussion, blocked me for vandalism, you can see why it was viewed petty and vindictive by other editors as well as myself. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:38, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
Plkrtn may have overreacted, but I'm sure that was because it was such a hot article. I can see both of your points of view quite clearly. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  20:40, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
I did not over react. I simply followed the rules. LOTDI misunderstood my wording maybe... but the fact is plain, you don't blank out articles like that.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  10:29, 6 April 2008 (PDT)
Thank you for taking the time to talk this through with me. I'll try to avoid this sort of problem in the future now that I understand what is expected. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:41, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
Sure. =] The whole mindf*ck page deletion is getting a little too heated for me as well...I think I'll just stick out of it and work on improving the other 3,885 articles on the wiki. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  20:43, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
LOL :) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:46, 2 April 2008 (PDT)

merge clarification

Sorry, I thought that might be unclear. What I meant was that there were 3 requirements to keep Mindfuck in any form at all, and 1 additional requirement to keep it on it's own page instead of merging. So if the first three requirements are met, keep mindfuck but merge it. If the other requirement is also met, then the article can stand on it's own. If you can suggest a good way to reword my vote to make it clearer I'd consider it a great help. Thanks! --Jackdavinci 20:27, 3 April 2008 (PDT)

I modified it, let me know what you think. --Jackdavinci 21:57, 3 April 2008 (PDT)

My apologies

A comment I left disappeared after a comment I put for you, but then went missing. Obviously its an issue with the content distribution system. Sorry. My attitude towards you comes from my general astonishment that you can't seemingly accept that people don't agree with you on that particular article, and has nothing to do with you as an editor in general, as over the years you've been an excellent user of the site. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  11:16, 6 April 2008 (PDT)

I have no problem that people will disagree, but I do have a problem when there is an appearance of ownership of an article by a few SysOps, who then appear to be using their superpowers to overrun an apparent majority.
  • As you've stated yourself below, we don't work to majority, we work to a consensus. We aren't "over running an apparent majority" at all, We are arbitrating, and trying to make sure that a consenus is reached.
We are trying to reach a concensus there, and that can only happen with compromise. However, compromise can't be reached in the current circumstances of sarcasm over provision of the reliable sources we are requesting. We disagree, so be it.
  • We have provided many, many sources, each of them rejected by yourself, wheras others including most of the sysops, agree with them. As SysOps, we have a role of arbitration over the site. The majority of the SysOps accept the applied sources, and as we aren't finding a consensus, you seem to be complaining that they don't meet your own personal standards. A compromise for consensus is reached by those of differing opinion finding a common ground, many of us have suggested that we could find a middle ground in the past, as was seen by my comments about making the page redundant by including it as a subsection of the plot twist article, and also by Santa, who suggested a very similar situation to myself. This wasn't facilitated correctly at all, being a single bullet point with a few badly illustrated examples, and then wiping out the page before asking users whether the article met the compromise situation. We've tried to find a common ground, we took it to Admin, who asked that we take it back to the community to find consensus. We have now place a straw poll to see if we have any consensus on this. Whilst we have tried to find some common ground for compromisation, I would suggest it isn't the SysOps who are having difficulty getting to that point.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  11:37, 6 April 2008 (PDT)

timeline edits

I rolled back the references in the timeline to the enhanced episodes. Since they are explicitly non-canon, they can't be directly referenced in the article itself. Dharmatel4 07:26, 7 April 2008 (PDT)

Since when are the enhanced episodes "explicitly non-canon"? Robert K S (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2008 (PDT)
*shrugs* -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:35, 7 April 2008 (PDT)

comments on your sandbox timeline

I was looking at recent edits and saw your sandbox timeline. I have a couple comments:

- Around the 80-ish episodes, you need to take the results of the ping-pong tournament and the timing of Sawyer's penalty into consideration if you have not already done so.

- The has always been a big gap in the timeline between Kate's return and the party reaching the flame/barracks. Using maps, it should take longer to walk from the beach to the Flame than from the Flame to the Barracks. The timeline is also vague enough in that region to allow for a couple unseen days of rest which were implicitly inserted into the existing timeline.

- Much of the lostpedia season three timeline was anchored to the explicit dates in Par Avion and DOC because without those dates a whole lot was open to interpretation.

Dharmatel4 08:57, 7 April 2008 (PDT)

New comment:

There is a line in Enter 77 near the flame: "We’ve been walking for two days," We don't know when they left, but we know there has to be at least a two-day gap between talking to Rosseau in the previous episode and reaching the Flame.

Dharmatel4 18:47, 7 April 2008 (PDT)

A question:

In your sandbox timeline, you have moved the Par Avion events off of day 80. How are you interpreting the "We have survived on this island for 80 days" line from that episode? Dharmatel4 21:03, 8 April 2008 (PDT)

BTW, you should add mobisode King of the Castle to the timeline. Malachi 11:49, 14 April 2008 (PDT)

"Yelling"

I simply put that because you have had a history of erasing all content from pages, instead of simply tagging them for a delete. Which is what you should have left it at. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  19:42, 7 April 2008 (PDT)

I've answered on your talk page, but want to just address it here as well. I don't have a "history" (I mistakenly followed poorly written instructions from a SysOp) and I didn't erase all content, I added a delete tag that you removed. Just to be sure that that wasn't mistaken for a correct comment. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:58, 7 April 2008 (PDT)

"entertaining" content

In what regard? I and many other SysOps won't entertain the same arguments and discussions being repeated continually no. That never gets the wiki anywhere and ties up valuable time that could be used elsewhere. Is it totalitarian that we ask that users not waste our time by repeating the same requests over and over? No. Not at all. In regards to article content. Yes. We can, and regularly do decide what can and can't go into articles, its part of our job to do so, much like any other editors. However, whilst the article is locked, and the debate is currently continuing as to its existence, to talk about the editing content on the page is a futile waste of time, and I'm not going to entertain wastes of time in order to make users, or myself feel better about things.

Are you really interested in discussing how to define a phrase in an article, when there is every chance that the article won't be here in the next 48 - 72 hours? Do you really think that it an intelligent, and useful time management to talk about that? Talking about things that may not exist in a few days due to a proceeding vote (the reason the page is locked from editing, no less) is futile and pointless, and only serves to slow down editors, sysops and the site itself in the long term.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  08:12, 8 April 2008 (PDT)

Yes I am determined to shut down conversations on those fronts, and its because I would like to stick to the crux of the matter at hand. I would rather people take part in the straw poll and give their point of view, rather than jump the gun and try and edit articles that are locked, and may not exist in the near future. Please don't talk to me in a patronising tone. I have been doing this work here long enough to know how the wiki works. We have asked people to poll on a delete or merge. Until the consensus is met on that, then I will continue to ask people to avoid cluttering the wiki and the straw poll with content that we have no need to discuss until after the straw poll is conducted and concluded, and until such a point where people are able to edit the article to their hearts content. The irony here, is that you're taking both the high and low ground. You want the article deleted from the site. I personally want the article to stay and be improved. But, as part of that I have been asking people not to discuss the improvements I want to see until the status of the article itself has been established. You then criticise me for asking that any discussion of the improvements that you do not want to see, is held till we know the future of the article. It also seems that you believe as a SysOp, I am not allowed to form any opinion on anything at all, because that opinion might differ from the consensus reached on the site. I would ask that you do not project onto me, ideals that I do not hold.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  08:35, 8 April 2008 (PDT)


Hello to You!

Thanks so much for the welcome!--BillyPilgrim 13:24, 8 April 2008 (PDT)

Thanks!

Obviously still a WIP and still trying to figure everything out around here! The wonderful world of Wiki, I mean. :)--Easter

Thanks, about the medals, I'm glad people like them :) --     c      blacxthornE      t     05:13, 16 April 2008 (PDT)

Please, I'm embarrassed. There's no need to say sorry; I actually prefer comments on the discussion page of my sandbox, at least when the thing is still work in progress, which it was when you added that comment. I think it was even more appropriate. I'm not trying to self-promote after on my user talk page after all (I do enough shameless self-promotion on my userpage anyway ;)) so... Thanks again! --     c      blacxthornE      t     07:22, 16 April 2008 (PDT)

Thanks, I'm going through the image categories and finished the first 16 (actually I didn't wanna mess with countries maps and flags stuff, so it's actually 15) but after that it gets a little tough. Category:Flashback images has 1125 images, and I'm trying to check 200 at a time (usually in a day, actually) because it's very boring :). Today I hit the 800th image in that category, and that leaves me 325 more and I'll say goodbye to one more cat. I decided to do this when I wanted to look for something, and saw that it was impossible to get through images because there are hundreds of images that are unused, duplicate, and/or useless. Thanks for the support. --     c      blacxthornE      t     08:17, 20 April 2008 (PDT)

I took the liberty of editing the above links to remove your talk page from the image categories it had found itself in. For reference, to link to a category without including the page in that cat, put a colon in front of it - [[:category:images]] = category:images.--TechNic|talk|conts 03:16, 21 April 2008 (PDT)
Sorry; my fault. --     c      blacxthornE      t     04:09, 21 April 2008 (PDT)

Your new sig

I'm glad that you decided to add your talk page as a link in your sig, that sure helps :). Cheers. --     c      blacxthornE      t     09:49, 16 April 2008 (PDT)

Wow, that's at least a year before I even knew about Lostpedia. BTW, I noticed your recommendation on the Main Page talk page, but you might want to recommend news items here ;). --     c      blacxthornE      t     09:56, 16 April 2008 (PDT)

timeline

I think at this point there is nothing in the way of making the changes necessary to re-align the timeline very soon. Making the changes is going to be complicated because there are lots of articles that need to be adjusted at the same time the timeline is. I think it would be best to do the change in stages. I think it would be best to make all the fixes from Par Avion to DOC first and then DOC onward seperately. Do you think your timeline between 80-86/88 is going to be changing much over the next week? It will be easier to discuss any issues if its not a moving target. Dharmatel4 13:58, 16 April 2008 (PDT)

It looks like you've picked apart the problems... slowly but surely!  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  01:18, 17 April 2008 (PDT)

Re: Image Issue

Wow, that's really odd. It somehow "got" the new (old) proportions, but the image remains the same, and this is not about image cache, I cleaned mine too. There's something wrong with it. Sorry that I caouldn't be of any help, but I think it's best that we upload the older one as a new image and change the images in articles accordingly (thankfully there are only 3). And then, of course, mark this one for deletion|unused. --     c      blacxthornE      t     04:16, 17 April 2008 (PDT)

Well he's done it on several articles, so I thought I'd talk to him about it before starting a possible edit war :), I didn't realize I left it unsigned. It's because of all this stupid image hunt I'm doing. I get used to save pages without signing 'em :)... --     c      blacxthornE      t     04:36, 17 April 2008 (PDT)
I didn't think you implied anything, just wanted to clarify things. Btw I've been noticing that he's one of the more active users lately, and you're right, he's all over the 'pedia. And actually I figured that it's somewhat a good thing: I'd like LP to be changed in vast areas, when not everyone's focused on one or two issues (like the mindf*ck discussion, or the latest episode aired and all the theory sections regarding that). I only decided to talk when I saw EMOS being disregarded. Anyway I did what I could, and I haven't got a response yet, so... Let's just wait and see. And I go hunt more images. --     c      blacxthornE      t     04:57, 17 April 2008 (PDT)
Heh heh... No worries; I guess we all get a little EMOSional from time to time ;) --     c      blacxthornE      t     03:18, 18 April 2008 (PDT)
I know I know it sucked, but I can't resist it sometimes. --     c      blacxthornE      t     04:12, 18 April 2008 (PDT)
Oh good. Actually I didn't like it myself, so I assumed it was just painful... Heh heh... --     c      blacxthornE      t     04:16, 18 April 2008 (PDT)
I'm glad. We will definitely get along then :D --     c      blacxthornE      t     04:23, 18 April 2008 (PDT)
No, no... I didn't do anything. I think it's psychological or something. --     c      blacxthornE      t     02:18, 21 April 2008 (PDT)

Constant theory clean-up

Wow, that's a huge one. I started on theories of 4x08, figured I'd go backwards... I finished only one section (of three) and it was like hell. Your effort was four times that (counting the byte differences), so, wow. Great job... Well, to be fair, though, I made my job harder because I added each "theory" that I removed to the discussion page to argue the reason :). So let's say your effort was two times that... But still; great job. --     c      blacxthornE      t     12:55, 17 April 2008 (PDT)

Galaga UQ

What was Ben's answer to "Did Ben actually want Locke to destroy it?" (And which episode?) Robert K S (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2008 (PDT)

timeline issues

Can you take a look at day 80 in the timeline? Lots of things that should be in 81 show up in 80. Something seems very wrong. Dharmatel4 19:26, 18 April 2008 (PDT)

plot/story

Ok, so you have knowledge about this stuff. I tried to look it up, but couldn't really find clear descriptions. If a plot is "all the events in the story", then what the heck is a story? Doesn't a story consist of "all the events in the story"? I mean, if you'd say that a plot is a part of the story, or heck, a story is a part of the plot, or whatever, I could understand. But if a plot covers the whole story, then why do we have different names for them? Would you mind explaining the difference between a plot and a story? 'Cause I like technicality, and I like movies and TV series, so, I hope I'm not asking too much... Well, actually I think I'm not, this is definitely gonna take less than it would if I went on disputing the PT/UN thing without knowing what the heck I'm talking about, right? Anyway I definitely wouldn't mind if you said you have no time and/or don't wanna bother. Thanks. --     c      blacxthornE      t     14:21, 19 April 2008 (PDT)

According to screenwriting guru Doran William Cannon (Authorship), story comprises the emotional picture painted by the brushstrokes of the individual events, which make up the plot. Plotting means putting together a sequence of events constrained by causality: this happens, so then that happens. She does this, so then he does that. When all the plot is boiled out of a story, the result is a logline (usually something of the form [Character] wants [objective], but has to overcome [adverse circumstances or adversary]) plus a resolution (like "and they all lived happily ever after"). Stories are said to "arc": how does the protagonist have to change in order to accomplish the objective? Plot is that combination of happenings that lead up to, culminate in, and follow that change. Another screenwriting guru, Robert McKee (Story), points out that a single story can be told by an infinity of different plots, depending on the writer's choices of what to include and what to exclude, which paths are chosen when confronted with the "rocky terrain" of story. (Rashomon is the famous example of multiple stories--i.e., emotional changes--being told from the same plot--i.e., sequence of events.) Robert K S (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2008 (PDT)
Heh. You're not asking too much :)
Boiled down, story is more than just what we see on the screen or read in a book; it's also what we have assumed and/or inferred beyond what we've seen or read. Plot (e.g. man vs. the Island, man vs. man, man vs. himself) involves the multiple events which present the story and lead us toward making assumptions and inferences. You tell someone a story (usually in part); the plot is how the story unfolds.
If we start reading or watching, for example, a story about two 40-year-olds who have been married for 10 years and are in conflict, we may assume several things:
  • they have 40 years of personal experiences, some of which will more than likely effect how they respond to the current conflict
  • they have the last 10 years of married experience, which has brought them to the point where we encounter them and may affect them in a different manner than if they were single for the last 10 years (or married for a longer or shorter time).
Even in just reading what I've written here, you've assumed certain things which may or may not be true:
  • Did you assume the people were married to each other? Or not?
  • Did you assume they were in conflict with each other? Or united against a common external conflict?
  • Did you assume the people were opposite sex? Or did you automatically leave the possibility open they could be homosexual?
We may also use the shown bits and pieces to make retrospective inferences about the character's lives. If we see one of them react strongly in a certain fashion, say the woman flinches visibly away from the husband, we may assume at first he is abusive or assume she was abused in some manner before she met him.
These assumptions and inferences are subconscious, and usually coloured by our own experiences and biases formed in our lives. If the plot presents answers to the questions we have formulated, our minds automatically begin making new assumptions and inferences and asking new questions. If by the end, the characters make up and "live happily ever after", we still might wonder about the story beyond what we are shown (are they made stronger by the conflict or did their marriage end? If it was an external conflict and one of them ended by killing someone in the final scene, did they get caught? Did the jury rule it self-defence? How did other people react? Did a minor character later become a major one by seeking revenge?) The story for us extends beyond plot, which is why we have websites dedicated to discussing and arguing over theories long after the show, movie, or book has finished.
A plot twist is something which happens and which usually destroy the assumptions and inferences we have built so far in our mind (e.g., Dave is not real and Hurley is mentally ill) changing how we perceive the story from the point of the twist, both in retrospect and into the future of the story. Sometimes too many clues (or bad writing not on Lost, of course) allows us to guess the twist long before we actually encounter it. Other times it can be hinted and we might think we know. And finally, there are those times when it's a complete surprise, and we have a "WHOA!!!WTH???!!!" moment :).
This is different than story analysis, where the plot twist might reveal the overall story itself is suspect, aka unreliable. While we can use both for a detailed analysis, we can't mix the two analysis methods or call one a subtopic of the other. Not every suspect story will have a definite plot twist to reveal the problem, and not every plot twist makes a story suspect enough to be called unreliable. It's apples and oranges, which are both fruit and could be mixed in a salad, but are completely different and independent from each other. Does that help? -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:08, 19 April 2008 (PDT)
Definitely. Thanks a lot :). --     c      blacxthornE      t     01:23, 20 April 2008 (PDT)

Lostscape

You only found all 34 items? I found 35. (No fooling.) Robert K S (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2008 (PDT)

I don't see Vincent on the Lostscape list. Robert K S (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2008 (PDT)
He does when you click on him. (Sort of a whack-a-mole game.) Robert K S (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2008 (PDT)
If I win I will take you with me. I don't think finding the Swan hatch (i.e. turning on the light) without opening it counts, as it doesn't display a pop-up. Robert K S (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2008 (PDT)
For that matter, I don't recall the camp fire displaying an item found pop-up, either. Robert K S (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2008 (PDT)

ARG

I don't think Lostscape qualifies as an alternate reality game. It's just an item search. I remember back when there was debate as to whether Find 815 was an ARG. It was sort of on the fringe--it had ARG elements (the real-world advertising for Oceanic Airlines) but was actually just a series of web games with elaborate cutscenes. Still, I think its few ARG elements help qualify it. Lostscape, not really. Robert K S (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2008 (PDT)

Tom

You need to follow the rules. You have made repeated attempts to change that article in spite of an ongoing discussion. You have tried to use the article to make statements about canon which is completely inappropriate in that article. You are out of line and you need to stop. Dharmatel4 13:53, 22 April 2008 (PDT)

1) The statement is clearly in discussion in an ongoing discussion to rename the article. The facts of the statements are what is at issue in the rename discussion therefore the "facts" of them cannot be argued to preserve them in the article. 2) Your attempts to use a trivia section to talk about Canon issues are clearly not allowed 3) 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. You need to let the discussion run its course before making any changes on this subject. Dharmatel4 14:31, 22 April 2008 (PDT)


A controversial issue at the center of a rename discussion is not going to be treated as a fact. Your individual edits do not constitute a "consensus". Dharmatel4 20:42, 22 April 2008 (PDT)
As I have told you multiple times now, what you are calling fact is in dispute within the discussion related to renaming the article. You cannot possibly look the repeated explainations I have given you and tell me you don't understand what was controversial. I'm not interested in your theories about my motivations and the discussion is not going to be conducted on your terms. You were owed an explaination and got one. If you don't like that explaination, I can't help you. Dharmatel4 22:02, 22 April 2008 (PDT)
I've already explained it to you. Your individual edits do not constitute a consensus. I have no idea who told you what and thats not my problem. I cannot tell you what was wrong in your interpretation of what you were told by someone else. And again, the issue is clearly in dispute. Do not tell me that it is a "fact" when there are comments written by people who disagree with you in the discussion for the page. There are people who disagree with you and you need to solve it with them before the article is changed. Dharmatel4 23:44, 22 April 2008 (PDT)

Gulls

Trouble

Oh no, I know you're more experienced with getting in trouble :). But I'm not doing this for you, or because of you. It's about an administrator, not only allowing, but supporting, you know... "crap". To be honest I was a little too overwhelmed with your insistence on that canonicity stuff but still I didn't say something like that, did I? I didn't say anything harsh to Minderbender, for example, I thought his word was too much so I told him that he shouldn't just say things like that, and frankly I'm not used to such things in Lostpedia. That's why I like this place. But as soon as administrators start supporting this kind of arguments, I don't think it'll stay that way. So it's not about you, really.--     c      blacxthornE      t     05:28, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

As I said there, I didn't think it was that offending (at least to report him or anything) either... But still it was an insult and it was about the "level" of the conversation. As I said, it's not about you, or Minderbender, I would just say what I said wherever I'd see that. It's just unnecessary, and as I said, if someone feels like they have to insult someone's opinion, I believe they should rest for a while and come back to discussion with a clear unfrustrated mind. And I really respect what Plktrn has done until now, and I didn't like some of the criticism he got some time ago, including yours, just because he was involved in discussions... But this is too much involvement IMO... Anyway I have to leave now, I'll just see if I can log in when I come back ;). --     c      blacxthornE      t     05:41, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Past versus present tense

Hello,

I'm not entirely sure how to respond to a comment left for me, so I hope this is the correct place/method. I changed your tense in your episode summary because every other episode summary on the site uses present tense to describe the actions within the episode. This is in keeping with how one discusses literature or film. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel1302 (talk • contribs) 26 April 2008.


EDIT: I'm in the same boat, too. We don't know enough about the structure of the show to be able to say that Island events are all in the past tense. Should the episode summary not be a running tale of what happens during the episode? --Halcohol 13:08, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

I noticed you changing things to past tense too... I double checked the MoS and it still says that episodes should be written in present tense. Am I missing something? --Jackdavinci 13:12, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

What I've been following

I'm trying to work on a job Robert K said wasn't being kept up; it's annoying, but even more so when all the annoying work is being reverted. The relevant part of the MoS policy is under 'Present versus past tense': "Description of completed elements of the Lost storyline, whether single events or longer summaries, should be written in the past tense" (i.e., they walked somewhere, they discussed something, they pulled a body onto the beach). Also, "Episode summaries in particular should be written in the past tense, because events will always be superceded by the upcoming episode" (i.e., X was the nth episode of Lost aired on blah, blah, blah). ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 13:22, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

  • I'll have to finish more later. I'm exhausted now, and discouraged because most of my work was reverted :( -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 13:25, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

As things stand now, the Episode Manual of Style and the general Manual of Style about what tense episode synopses should be in. The EMOS states that we should use *present* tense while the MOS states that we should use *past* tense. Up until recently, all of the episodes have been using present tense. The current episode seems to have been written in past tense, and I notice that some users have been converting some of the older episodes into past tense recently. I think before we go changing every episode article, we should resolve this issue and reconcile the two MOS pages so that they do not contradict each other. --Jackdavinci 13:27, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

What you have there about the episode summaries being in the past tense (*was the whateverth episode) seems completely unnatural. It's not like the episode is gone or dead or anything, it still exists and can be watched individually. I don't think it's right to discuss an episode like it was a one-time event. --Halcohol 13:30, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

  • Actually, I think it makes perfect sense. The episode has aired already by 11pm Thursday in the States. It was the 9th episode of Lost, while the next will be the 10th, until it too airs. The only thing which should remain present tense, IMO and with MoS, are actions that continue into the next episode or are uncompleted (for the most recent episode, Ben and Locke believe Hurley will lead them to Jacob's cabin, because that hasn't happened yet). See the bottom of the MoS talk page where SysOp Robert said I could do this, which is why I was helping out. *sigh* at contradictory policy (I'm going to bed, so I won't be around to reply again) ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 13:37, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Thanks, I should have been there hours ago, but my insomnia has been feral. Thanks so much for the pic! I'll get it on there tomorrow :) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 13:46, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

I know this is not the place to discuss this, but I think we should use: Present tense in epsiode articles. Past tense in every other article that uses more than one episode's events in its summary. For example: 4x09 article should say "Locke and Ben take Hurley with them...", while the Locke article should say "Locke and Ben took Hurley with them..." --     c      blacxthornE      t     13:54, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

  • No offence, because you can discuss anything here with me as far as I'm concerned, but I'm no longer going to take part in making that decision. I've explained my reasons on the talk page itself. I'll help out again when someone with authority tells me the final results, (or not, because it's aggravating). -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 23:43, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Hey it sucks that sysops were telling you policy that wasn't written in a consistent way. Thanks for taking on a thankless project! :-) Sorry you got burned! I myself had started a thankless project last year and got burned so I know how it feels. --Jackdavinci 13:45, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

Hey

We seem end up on opposite sides of a lot of issues, but I just wanted to quickly apologize if your comment about "flesh burning" on the Talk:LP:EMOS page was about my arguments. I guess I misunderstood your point, I thought you were arguing in favour of past tense for the articles, which I guess from your comments you're not and were just relaying stuff from other sysops. At any rate, I didn't mean for it to come off as against you, just that I thought your points about the DVDs was the reason why I support present tense, and I figured I'd raise that. Sorry if it came off personally. Cheers. :) Jimbo the tubby 00:20, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

UN

Hi there. Before we get into a full literary debate, can we just clarify our terms of reference? How are you defining the distinction between story and plot? I would define it (in a nutshell) as being that the story is what happens and the plot is how it happens. Are we singing from the same hymn sheet here?--TechNic|talk|conts 21:24, 27 April 2008 (PDT)

I asked the same question some time ago... Take a look above.--     c      blacxthornE      t     02:10, 28 April 2008 (PDT)

I think it's time to stop the childish edit wars. Consensus is really simple: if you have it, you go with the edit, if you don't you go with the status quo. Stop re-re-reverting. It's against policy, and it's really ugly. --     c      blacxthornE      t     11:55, 28 April 2008 (PDT)

  • I know. But it's still not healthy; as it's not advised to revert edits even of vandals like this... And just to be clear: The message was not personal; I left an exact copy on Dagg's page. --     c      blacxthornE      t     12:01, 28 April 2008 (PDT)

4x09 blooper

My bad, I see the cabinets now. I looked for a common landmark in the pics before but I didn't see one, but I guess I just missed that. Sorry and thanks for letting me know. :) Jimbo the tubby 12:21, 28 April 2008 (PDT)

I disagree with the tattoo being offscreen, since this tattoo isn't Jacks regular tattoo. If it is possible for you, take a look at the scene - I'm not able to make a screencapture of this.

Desmond article

I disagree with your edit on the Desmond article. It seems like you deleted the link that I added simply because you do not like me. You are specifically addressing me in your edit description, stating that "I'm trying to get away with something". It is very strange that you would target my link that quoted the Washington Post. Wouldn't it make more sense to remove all the multiple bullets about "Terrapin Station", and the full list of lyrics for that song? Those seem much less relevant to the Desmond article, and yet you chose to target my contribution. In my personal opinion (but I'm not a sysop), these types of edits in which you are targeting my contributions are against the site's policies. Please read Lostpedia:No personal attacks#Avoid strong language in edit summaries. Have a nice day. -- Dagg talk contribs4 8 22:52, 28 April 2008 (PDT)

For what it's worth, I went and checked out the article in question. I had assumed it would be about how maybe the flashbacks aren't reliable - that they represent fallible memories, a theory I disagree with. But actually, the article is trying to figure out what the significance is of the Swan orientation film being hidden in the novel The Turn of The Screw. The article suggests that the writers might be trying to get us to pay attention to the idea of the unreliable narrator, suggesting maybe Desmond's story is suspect or perhaps the story suggested by the film. I personally doubt the former but could support the latter. This link might be valuable on the literature and Swan Orientation film pages. We have seen evidence that DHARMA edits and even falsifies information in it's films - on the other hand we haven't seen much evidence of Desmond doing the same. So I would suggest it belongs on the other two pages but not the Desmond page except if just for completeness sake. --Jackdavinci 23:35, 28 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Thanks for your input, Jack. The problem is not a disagreement over retention of the link; I agreed with that, but only used with the direct mention regarding Desmond. The issue is the misquote and usage of unreliable narrator as if the Washington Post editors called Desmond a literary device. Correcting the error had nothing to do with personal affirmation or degradation of the editor including it. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:16, 29 April 2008 (PDT)

Self-serving behavior

Did you read what I wrote on the user's talk page, and on Nic's? You're under the impression the user is a newbie, or that we're losing out on a lot of contructive edits by giving the user a very short block to get a message across. The user has been around a year. In that whole time the user's only edit activity has been to add external links. There's a pattern here. If the user is well-intentioned, the user can resume his contributions, sans spamming, in another 2 days. (Going by the pattern, though, one might predict this will amount to exactly no edits at all.) Robert K S (talk) 05:42, 30 April 2008 (PDT)

The Shape of Things to Come transcript

Thanks for your many great typo corrections to this transcript--much appreciated! But be careful when your edits in favo(u)r of non-American English actually alter dialogue, as you did to Hurley in this edit. "Towards" is just as common as "toward" in American English. Robert K S (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2008 (PDT)

All yours. Also, no explanation for your removal of the tone description for the doorman "(Incredulous)". When I transcribed the episode, I tried to add little dialogue descriptions in the style of teleplays to help convey the flavor of expression. Robert K S (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2008 (PDT)
I didn't notice he was removing it from a sleeve. Interesting how two different people interpret the same images differently. If you're sure about an edit, yeah, feel free to improve the transcript. I enjoy doing the description portions of the transcript. Gives me a chance to try to improve my writing ability. I guess at how the screenwriters might have described the same actions and images. It's not easy. Robert K S (talk) 07:57, 1 May 2008 (PDT)
Ha! Oh! I'll be damned. Because if I didn't add that, I was thinking it. Amazing how two people interpret the same same images exactly the same. :-) Robert K S (talk) 08:00, 1 May 2008 (PDT)

The U.S.

  • Yeah - thanks bud - I changed it right after I made the goof.--Overworkedirish 13:34, 1 May 2008 (PDT)

4x10

Thanks for the heads up. I rechecked the scene and you are right the sneakers aren't visible the first time. However John Terry does a 3/4 turn which shows just as much of his face as the full-on face shot later in the darkened lobby. As many times as Jack has seen his dead father wandering around, I think he and the audience knew it was Christian from the get-go. Lanpesci 04:33, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

Sorry for the extra work. That wasn't my edit before, so I must have inadvertnetly copied it when I was making my change. Thanks for getting it cleared up. Lanpesci 04:52, 2 May 2008 (PDT)


410 Pic (Jack leaves Kate)

  • I can change the caption if you want, but I can tell you that this pic has been taken from the final scene where Jack leaves the house. I can tell you that because I took the pic myself! - TheAma1 06:24, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

Re: Daniel lied

Oops, misread that. Thanks. :)  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  12:23, 7 May 2008 (PDT)

Couple of issues

Retrieved from "http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/User_talk:LOSTonthisdarnisland/archive1"