User talk:Plkrtn

From Lostpedia

Jump to: navigation, search

· User Talk Archive up to 14/09/2006 · User Talk Archive from 15/09/2006 - 20/11/2006 · User Talk Archive from 21/11/2006 - 12/02/2007 · User talk Archive from 12/02/2007 - 10/02/2008

Contents

User Talk Below

RE: Template Creation

Naomi, Frank, Charlotte, Miles and Daniel should get templates. Rousseau, Vincent, Rose and Bernard, Ethan and Arzt all got them and they aren't even main cast members. Look at Walt's (not Michael and Walt's-just Walt on his own) and Boone's. They're even smaller!

I hope you'll reconsider. RegardsDecboy 14:37, 11 February 2008 (PST) Decboy

Comment request

  • Could you take a look at a request I received? See this -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 16:26, 11 February 2008 (PST)

Survivors Camp and The Others portals - Captured individuals?

Hi Plkrtn. I thought I would run an idea by you for the picture formats on the portals of the Survivors Camp and The Others. There are currently four categories: Alive, Missing or Unknown, Defected | Defected to..., and Dead. I was hoping that maybe a fifth category could be added for Captured? It would be formatted like the Defected category, where it would read "Captured | Captured by..." to indicate both that the individual has been captured and the people/group that captured the individual.

This idea came with Ben's capture, but I think it can also apply to Cindy, Emma, and Zack who were forcibly kidnapped by The Others, instead of deciding to defect. The "Defected | Defected to..." tag would still apply to Alex, Karl, and Juliet who willingly decided to side with the Survivors. Anyway, please consider my request and give a response on my talk page, thanks! Jelx 14:11, 6 February 2008 (PST)

Thanks for the reply. Actually, I first thought red would be an appropriate color, but that was just recently made the color for Dead. The best color would probably be a dark or negative color, such as gray, black, etc... Jelx 05:41, 12 February 2008 (PST)
The U.S. POW MIA ribbon color is yellow, maybe we should use that. [1]   >: BLEF █   05:49, 12 February 2008 (PST)

Frank Lapidus - removal of comment

Plkrtn - I have been reading for a long time and have just begun posting. I posted a comment to the Frank Lapidus Theories, which you removed (amongst others) stating that "removed far too much speculation!" Since it is one of my first comments I wanted to get a better understanding why you think this. My comment in particular was:

  • Frank has been infatuated with the crash since it occurred.
    • Has memorized the manifest
    • Appeared to be observing/experimenting with how the plane would sink by using toy plane and aquarium when we first meet him.

Thanks - jlollar --Jlollar 06:43, 20 February 2008 (PST)


Elliot Maslow

Plkrtn- Here is comfirmation that Elliot's last name is Maslow.

http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/829/829060/vids_1.html

Go to this link and watch "HD Interview". Gadi Pollack quotes that Elliot's last name is Maslow.--CTS 17:23, 20 February 2008 (PST)

Aaron

"Its been confirmed by TPTB that this is actually Aaron." Where did they confirm this, I haven't seen it yet? Thanks. --Minderbinder 08:04, 28 February 2008 (PST)

Bob

I'm planning to return to this site shortly, so prepare for a series of massive vandal strikes if you do not comply with my term (you should know what they are by now). See my talk page for details. Regards, Oli M. Silent51 03:19, 2 March 2008 (PST)

Today in Lost

Hey there. Just a quick one to remind you in Template talk:TodayinLost you said it would be unprotected ASAP so that it could be finished but it still hasn't been. Are you going to do it or have you changed your mind? Also, on a side note, I just found out Bob (the vandal) has the same last name as me. No relation. Hopefully. --Blueeagleislander 01:25, 4 March 2008 (PST)

Another problem. When I go to save page, this comes up while editing the template "This page has been protected from editing, because it is included in the following pages, which are protected with the "cascading" option turned on: * Main Page" . What do I do? --Blueeagleislander 01:59, 4 March 2008 (PST)

Discussion Page Question

  • Hi Paul, Just a little question regarding the.. preferred layout of discussion pages. Should subheadings be under the same policies used on normal article subheadings (like only the first word being Capital lettered unless its a noun). Also, should all individual conversations be bullet pointed, and indented when replying to a specific comment? Thanks. --Lewis-Talk-Contribs 03:36, 6 March 2008 (PST)

writing on talk pages

Please do not write on my talk page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by CastorPollock (talk • contribs) .

Policies in progress

Hi. Can you include Lostpedia:User talk in Category:Policies in process please? See my comment on the talk page. Thanks.--TechNic|talk|conts 16:19, 9 March 2008 (PDT)

About those templates

I had originally created Template:LogicGrams, Template:TLEGrams, Template:GroupAnagrams so as not to clutter up the Anagrams page. However, I have posted the code from the templates to the main anagrams page upon seeing your comment, and so you can now delete all three templates. -- Sam McPherson  T   C 17:13, 9 March 2008 (PDT)

Karl's Death

Seemed like a good enough source to me since it came from the actor, but I will remember that from now on. Sorry. --Cormacalian 12:56, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

Talk Editing

Apologies - I noticed that on the policy page - of course AFTER my attempt to help the poster out. I'll be sure to find ways of doing so without directly editing their text next time. Thanks!

In the meantime as a SysOps, maybe you could help me out with a situation I posted on another SysOps, User talk:Robert K S's page.--Overworkedirish 18:56, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

Sig

Hi i need some help with my signature , the grey border on the outside, is only meant to go around the ">: David Gee", but instead goes around the entire signature. any ideas?

  >: David Gee  █  Communicate   Flashback   . (http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/User:David_Gee/sig)

Talk:Archetype

Plkrtn, I know we got off on the wrong foot over your block of me that was seen as unfair, but your accusation and admonishment on this talk page makes no sense at all. I did not remove any of your comments, as the history will bear out. It appears that your disagreements with me are discolouring your attitude toward me, and I'd appreciate if you'd take a moment to double check your facts before you accuse me of something I didn't do. Thank you. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:34, 6 April 2008 (PDT)

No worries. I just didn't want to see this get into a hair-pulling festival because of disagreement in a heated discussion. Apology accepted, of course. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 11:18, 6 April 2008 (PDT) Edit, because I saw your edit after this post: 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. 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. Let's just not let this bleed to other areas, as it seems to be doing. My comment to Moss Ryder was fair and accurate; if you read his comment on the MF talk page, you'll see why I commented that he is using an opposing reason under similar circumstances on the MN subsection. 11:23, 6 April 2008 (PDT) Edit2: Well, darn, you edited again, and now you're trying to make me cry ;). Seriously, I have no problem with you other than this small issue, so bygones and all that. 11:25, 6 April 2008 (PDT)
(Excuse me because I see this is a ramble, but it's 5am here and I'm a bit wired from staying up too late and can't see where I should cut this down while still making my points.) The role of arbitrator is one of neutrality, please understand what you call arbitration, I refer to as feeling the SysOps are overrunning the editors. When a SysOp gives the appearance of lacking neutrality by stating their opinion, then knocking anyone out of the discussion by using their superpowers (e.g., removing delete and merge templates with authoritative-sounding comments) that disagrees with their position, it's a concern. If an uninvolved SysOp mediated, perhaps it might have appeared differently. It may not have been properly expressed by some involved in the discussion, but perhaps you can understand this point now. Right now, 17 people have answered under "merge"; 5 have said No, 10 have said Merge, 1 is undecided after consideration, and 1 seems to have no clue what he wants based on a strange reply. So as I write this, 15 seem to be sure of their decision with twice as many for Merge over No. Of those 10, 6 have directly or indirectly pointed to the definition of the word and the legitimacy of the term itself in literary usage as the or a reason for their vote for merge. So it's not just me, as you and Jabr seem to imply. I am, yes, the most vocal, because I think that the points have been obfuscated in sarcasm, misdirection, and anger, and feel it's important to draw attention back to those points. Can you not see that the following sections on that talk page, authored by other editors, enforce what I have been saying about the definition and how it's confusion leads to bad edits and more fighting? The sticking issue in resolving this seems to be side A believes that MF is illegitimate slang for PT, while side B seems to believes that MF is a type of PT but a separate, legitimate term. However, when side A asks for a reliable source to show that it is a separate, legitimate term, side B gets snarky, and then the snarky comments fly all over the place. How do we reach a compromise then? I believe it is through understanding that side A has a legitimate beef with the terminology, policy dictates citation of reliable sources, and the sources to date have not been seen as reliable. Note that no one is jumping up from side A and saying, "what a great source that provides a clearcut defintions", and asking what I am on about. Instead, they are suggesting other compromises, one I strongly disagree with about deceptions and cons, to settle the matter. And still we have no clearcut answer to a simple question of providing a source that defines them as separate and legitimate literary terms. I supplied several of the provided sources, if you will note, and not one differentiates between the terms, and all call MF slang. It's not that I am rejecting them without reason; it's that none have been provided an answer to that question, leading toward a proper definition for the article if it is retained. Can you not see that there is a pre-existing problem that has nothing to do with me or all the other editor who opposes your viewpoint? There has not been a proper definition established so that Editor X knows what to put on MF (if it's retained) and what to put on PT instead. Before, the article just appeared to be a resting ground for improper examples (for PT even) and as many uses of the f-bomb as editors could get away with. Even cleaned up, it's still a mess and the definition is unusable for the average editor. That's all we are looking to do, all of us, make a better encyclopedia for Lost. P.S. If I didn't facilitate the information from MF to PT correctly, why is it still standing like that? Why not fix it if you disagree with it? -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 12:18, 6 April 2008 (PDT)
Since this is not directly related to the MF article, and I already talked about it in this section of your talk: regarding you saying "we are not going to entertain" Might I suggest comments like this lead to some thinking that you ARE "being totalitarian", to use your phrase? (see my last message to you here, in this regard) With all due respect, is it policy for a SysOp to dictate what can and cannot be "entertained" on a talk page and "when" it can be "entertained"? (within reason, I mean; I'm not talking about bad faith edits and personal attacks, but normal article-related conversation) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:58, 8 April 2008 (PDT)
Am I really interested in discussion about other article content when the article might not be there? Not really. Obviously you aren't either. My point, though, is that some editors are interested, and instead of just letting them talk those things out amonst themselves, you appear to be determined to shut conversation down on those fronts, and it's said with the authority of a SysOp so it comes across as I said above. Do I think it's "intelligent, and useful time management"? Is that really something for me, or you for that matter, to judge for someone else? They think it's important, and if the article is retained, it might wind up actually being important. So what's the big deal if those things are discussed? The conversations follow the "rules" in that they are on the appropriate article's talk page, the discussions are on-topic to the article as it currently stands, and it must make them feel good to contribute in their fashion. In not shutting them down, you have everything to gain, and nothing to lose, eh? Perhaps just ignore those bits, as they really aren't hurting anything? -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 08:22, 8 April 2008 (PDT)
Firstly, I don't believe, and never suggested in any way, that you personally were "not allowed to form any opinion on anything at all". Obviously your opinions are taken into consideration by me, or you'd notice that I had simply ignored your contribution to the discussion. I was also not refering to any of your rights (or abilities) in governing the rules, guidelines, and policies through your SysOp status. I was expressing how it appears when your opinions on a matter are given undue weight in the discussion by assertion of measures related to your SysOp status. Secondly, I wasn't attempting to talk to you in a patronising tone at all. I thought I was helping you understand why confict, rather than resolution appears to sometimes be the order of the day on that talk page. You were always welcome to take my advice or leave it. I won't say anything else to you about it, since the conversation appears to have ruffled your feathers. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 08:51, 8 April 2008 (PDT)

'bias' ban

Just so you know, I didnt mention any specific sysop when i said biased ban. i was simply stating my opinion, whether you agree with it or not. --CTS 10:39, 6 April 2008 (PDT)

  • Obviously us two got off to the wrong start, and we each disparaged each other on the mindf*ck talk page, but I think it would be best if we stopped the disparging and came to a truce. --CTS 10:57, 6 April 2008 (PDT)

Delete (change my opinion)

I have thought about this a few days now, and I must say I have changed opinion about the articles One of Us (song), Born to Run (song) and The Internationale. There would be, as you all say, a big risk that there will be a lot of speculative articles with unconfirmed information. I think it would be a good idea to have this "possible" references listed in the Music/Theories instead. If there are anything mentioned about this "possible" references in the episode articles it would be nice if someone would make a crossref to Music/Theories instead of crossref to Music.

I have also a few other articles that might be subject of deletion. Check out The House of the Rising Sun, Ladytron (song) and Purple Haze and mark for deletion if you think so. Theres also some songs, that I haven't created articles for yet, that I'm unsure of. Can you give me your opinion about them before I create them please. Check out Music#Referenced songs and musicians. There have been discussion about one song earlier on the Talk:Music#"In Your Eyes" by Peter Gabriel. While you are there you can have a look at the references to musicians (without song) on the list. Have a nice evening! / Dreamingtree72 13:53, 8 April 2008 (PDT)

Smear campaign?

Sorry if you misinterpreted my wording, but I was merely stating what I felt based on the context of your wording. I am not trying to make you "look bad" in any way. I was simply stating my interpretation of consensus, and how I feel consensus should be redefined. If you don't agree with my rebuttle, please state so in a counter-argument, but accusing me of trying to make you look bad? Not at all...--CTS 16:24, 11 April 2008 (PDT)

Tense

  • Hey Paul, I was just wondering what tense we operate in on articles: past or present? Thanks, --  Lost Soul   talk  contribs  05:54, 12 April 2008 (PDT)
    • Okay, thanks. I ask because there are some articles in just past (which is good), just present (not so good), or even a mix of both (which is terrible). I'll try and fix some of the ones I find. :D
Oh, and also, just to add, I was wondering if Portal:Themes could have a template similar to Portal:Survivors Camp, to make it look snazzier? I think it looks odd with just the pics. Thanks!--  Lost Soul   talk  contribs  09:57, 12 April 2008 (PDT)

Fair use/galleries?

I was wondering why exactly galleries are against fair use. This confused me (on the Jackface discussion). And, is there any way to implement the group of images into the Jackface article without violating fair use?-- Sam McPherson  T   C 20:38, 12 April 2008 (PDT)

Thanks for explaining that to me, I think that I understand now. Is there a way to make a collection of these images on a single page on the wiki at all, or should we use an external link? -- Sam McPherson  T   C 20:44, 12 April 2008 (PDT)
Okay. Thanks for clearing that up! =] I'll get to work on an external site. -- Sam McPherson  T   C 20:47, 12 April 2008 (PDT)
Haha, sure will. A nice, fat banner would do. -- Sam McPherson  T   C 20:52, 12 April 2008 (PDT)

Canon Templates

Thanks for suggesting that the work is enough to be a basis for a proposal for the site. However, I'd like to be clear on some things before I take any action:

  1. Do you think it should be an individual policy? Because I think it is very closely related to Lostpedia:Canon.
    1. If so, what will be the main difference between Canon (as policy) and Canon Templates policy?
  2. And more importantly, my templates basically suggest that the current canon categories should change. Should I include that to the proposal? These are the changes:
    • The biggest change is that there is a Non-Canon category, which is for non-canon material that do not fall into any of the Fanon, Parody, or Hoax subcategories. The Non-Canon category page, though, says that nothing should be added to the Non-Canon category and they should be in the proper subcategories instead.
    • The other thing is that I've added the Disputed banner which requires the Disputed category (probably best be a subcategory of Non-Canon too).
  3. Other than that, I'm thinking about another banner for Non-Fiction (writer, cast member, crew member articles, articles/sections about literary works that are referenced, etc.) Do you think I should pitch it, or will it be too obvious already?
  4. And the last but not the least: Taking all this into account, what do you think the name of the proposal should be? Because I don't think just "Canon Template" covers it :). Should I make it a new suggestion to reconsider the whole canon category thing in Lostpedia talk:Canon?

I know it's a lot, but I haven't made a "(proposed)" page before, and I don't know how prepared I should be before I can do that. I wanted to be sure :). Thanks. --     blacxthornE       t       c     14:06, 13 April 2008 (PDT)

Lostpedia Interviews

timeline

It's a real pisser. I think much of the problem is DOC and where editor assumptions crept in and were retained. I can certainly see both sides of the coin, and there are indicators which are still contradictory, but I can't get past the fact Day 80 is so firmly established by 4 timestamps, and the Brig lays everything out so evenly to put Greatest Hits on Day 90, matching Jack's statement about being the leader for 90 days. I'm supposed to be working, though, LOL. :$ -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:28, 17 April 2008 (PDT)

Island history *coughs* -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 08:57, 18 April 2008 (PDT)

Tense

Heads up -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:50, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Portal:Surivors Camp

Why is Portal:Survivors Camp protected? - Tvb 19:57, 1 May 2008 (PDT)

Alerting SysOps

On the Survivors Camp portal talk page, you said "Because sometimes, the admins who have it locked need to be alerted to things directly, instead of just having people complaining and moaning on the talk page. If you're that passionate about getting it changed, you just need to alert one of the SysOps instead of whinging." I'm just curious, what's the best way to notify admins? There have been a few things lately that seem to take a while to change, so if this is because nobody is bringing it up in the proper channels, it'd be nice to know what those channels are (the Season 4 page is one of the biggest offenders). Thanks for the help! :) Jimbo the tubby 01:14, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

Thanks. :) Jimbo the tubby 12:13, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

Delete request

Would you please delete my user page? Thank you. Tygartl1 19:44, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

Vandal

Letting you know that User:Pulpkb vandalized the Keamy page. --CTS 21:30, 10 May 2008 (PDT)

Portal Changes

I was reading on one of the portal talk pages, and you said to alert an admin when a change was needed instead of whining about it. So, here I am. Portal:Freighter should have the following changes: Gault and Ray need to be listed as deceased. Mayhew needs to be added, and deceased. Um, thanks. Let me know if I did the wrong thing. -- Sam McPherson  T   C 16:40, 11 May 2008 (PDT)

Couple of issues

A couple of issues :-) Note: I posted this to both RobertKS and Plktrn as the only two seemingly active sysops at the moment.

  1. Seems like there is a lot of back and forth editing going on with regards to the STATUS of characters which seems to be due to the inadequate policy description on the template page. I raised some questions about the policy on the talk page, maybe you'd care to weigh in on the issue on the talk page? Template_talk:Infobox_Island_Character#Status
  2. There had been some issues with the categories and banners for Canonicity, but blackxthornE wrote up a really great proposal for streamlining the categories and correlating them correct and enhanced banners. Right now there's a consensus, however only three or so users have weighed in and no sysops. Black would love to get a go ahead from a sysop before he implements the changes. Lostpedia_talk:Canon#Discussion_-_Changes_in_canon_categories.2C_templates_and_LP:CANON
  3. A while ago there were some issues with image reuploads going beyond the usual delay into never appearing at all. Supposedly the problem had been fixed, but the problem is happening again. This is forcing users to upload changes to images under a new file name, which is creating orphaned images that only sysops can delete. Can you look into this? I realize it may require one of the sysops who knows about the more technical aspects of the wiki but I don't know who exactly that might be.
  4. The tense policy for episodes is *still* contradicted on different policy pages, present on Lostpedia:Episode_Manual_of_Style#Tense and past on Lostpedia:Manual_of_Style#Present_versus_past_tense. I suspect that a consensus was reached in the debate on the EMOS page for it to be present tense and no one realized it hadn't been changed on MOS. It has caused some problems with edits and reverts each citing the policy page the editor happened to consult.
  5. Lostpedia:Episode_Manual_of_Style is currently orphaned. I suggest a link to it from both the MOS page and the help infobox.
  6. Robert's proposal for an UQ might merit turning into a real policy page. User_talk:Robert_K_S/UQ_sections
  7. I made a counter proposal for changing the UQ sections into a Mysteries section. Might you weigh in on the idea and also let me know if there's a more appropriate talk page for the proposal? User_talk:Robert_K_S/UQ_sections

Phew! Thanks for any help you can provide on these issues. --Jackdavinci

Interviews

  • Over on the forum, I'm conducting an interview with Jamie Silberhartz. I'm going to post the transcript on here; basically, I know you were involved in TLE, so I was wondering if you had any questions that I can send to her, maybe to clear up a few unanswered issues or to give an insight as to how the Experience was created and executed? I was involved to an extent, but only from the HansoExposed stage onwards, so would appreciate some questions from the first few stages. Cheers,--  Lost Soul   talk  contribs  00:58, 14 May 2008 (PDT)

Dark

Do you actually believe Dark posts spoilers to got more AdSense dollars? If so then you are seriously mistaken, perhaps you should read some of his comments on the main page post. Also, why did you lock the talk page as well? Do you have a problem with people talking about how they disagree with you and this sites policy? Gran2 12:11, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

I respectfully disgaree. In an ideal world there would be no spoilers at all, but this isn't an ideal world. Dark has done nothing wrong, and if anything he has helped save fans of the show from spoilers. As he said, if he hadn't agreed to post the finale synopsis on his site, Lostfan108 (whoever the hell he is) would have posted them on forums across the net, without any warning at all. By taking them, Dark has at least given many fans an option as to whether they want to read them or not by including a clear warning. I understand that you don't want finale to be easily accessible on here, that's fine, but I strongly disagree with you making Dark seem like the enemy. If you want to blame anyone, blame Lostfan108, cos if Dark didn't post the spoilers, it would have probably been a hell of a lot worse. Gran2 12:24, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
Well I can see you won't change your mind, and I really have better things to do than argue back and forth all night. Perhpas, in an ideal world, Dark should report his contacts to ABC and close down his site, but I don't think that'll happen. But they'll always be leaks, whatever it is, and that's life. Good luck with fighting finale spoilers (I'm sure some troll will try and post them on random talk pages) and I hope the finale isn't spoilt for you. I'll be reading Dark's spoilers, I live in the UK anyway and so read the Lostpedia description for every episode before I get to see it, so to me it makes no difference if I read the plot on DarkUFO a week or so earlier than I would on here. Have a nice day. Gran2 12:41, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

I think you are acting like a child. The spoiler page is there for spoilers, and its childish for you to lock it down when spoilers come up that you don't want to see. And then locking the talk page also so that noone can even disagree with you? I think that either the page should just be removed, or plk should have his finger taken off the button. JMHO--moss ryder 13:47, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

I totally support locking down the page now that entire synopses have leaked for the finale. And I don't have any respect for what DarkUFO did. I think he's delusional if he thinks he's protecting anyone by publishing it. Same if he thinks he can keep it from getting leaked all over the internet, which is certain to happen. I definitely hope I don't run across spoilers on the net before the finale, and if I do I'm certainly going to be pissed - who else but DarkUFO will be to blame if he's the guy who first posted them? --Minderbinder 15:37, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

Just stopped by to say

That I completely agree with what you're doing for the spoiler page. I don't exactly understand why it's being debated, when they can easily go to DarkUfo to look it up. Thanks for keeping Lostpedia a neutral place. -- Sam McPherson  T   C 12:19, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

I agree as well, this whole spoiler issue is getting out of hand. LP should be a neutral site. --CTS 13:51, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
So do I. Opposers may be technically right but a season finale spoiler (especially considering that it's a BIG 3 hour finale) is devastatingly huge, and damaging to the show, no matter who thinks what. That's why I think it's a good idea to lock it, and, if anything, the policy should be ammended accordingly.--     blacxthornE       t       c     15:24, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
Retrieved from "http://lostpedia.com/wiki/User_talk:Plkrtn"