Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roylucier (talk | contribs) at 05:29, 4 May 2009 (notice on troy high school stuff). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
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)
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)
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages 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)
February 2009
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)
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 ], 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
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. 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)
Lost
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)
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)
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)
Apostrophes
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)
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)
Yet here you are bothering me on grammar......Fine. I left a comment on your page, are you ready to take to this to a 3R dispute? Whippletheduck (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Enhanced commentary
If the commentary says she's insane, then that's fine to point out. Your theory that she was making the sickness up, though, remains your opinion. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
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)
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)
Quit being so paranoid. This is Misplaced Pages. 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)
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)
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.
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. 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)
