User talk:Jtrost/Archive1

These topics are archived. Please start all new topics on my talk page.

Archives
Archive #1, Nov 05 - Oct 06

Re: Survivor Spoiler Image

hey there, regarding the survivor spoiler image. perhaps i misinterpreted it - i thought it was an image of the guatemala jury, rather than the council itself. since i saw (cant' remember his name, the new york doorman) sitting there, i thought it was from a future tribal council, showing he'd been voted off. looks like it was my error! i saw it and looked away so quickly it probably said it was the council, not the jury. sorry about that! Anastrophe 03:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

re: eclipse on OS X

that eclipse problem is really odd...if it helps any, try it like this -
1. Download this. After downloading, verify by typing in "md5 /path/to/eclipse-SDK-3.1.1-macosx-carbon.tar.gz" in Terminal.app and then comparing the checksum with this
2. untar/gz using OS X (just double click) or stuffit
3. open folder created by step 2
in that folder should be a lot of things - folders called "configuration", "features", "plugins", "readme", something called startup.jar, a notice.html, an Eclipse.app..
then just doubleclick on eclipse.app and it'll start eclipse
if you don't see that .app, try opening terminal.app and typing in "open /path/to/eclipse_folder_name/Eclipse.app" and hit enter

if you want, you can build from source, but that would be a pain in the ass - here.

if you're still stuck after that, email/instant message me - I have a few different methods of contact listed on http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=applegoddess (email, skype, gtalk, jabber, msn, aim, yahoo) janey the crazy 20:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

great to hear that you fixed it! :D janey the crazy 22:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Nip/Tuck Ratings

I sent my actual response to your email because I didn't know how to use user talk. User:ManSlayer07

Survivor "surprise" live vote counting

You're right. I'm wrong. I found at least two pages that describe how Jeff did his fly away with the vote thing after the final vote. I didn't find a mention of the twist ending, but I can agree it wasn't in the Outback season. So my (faulty) memory holds on to the twist, but apparently it wandered in time for me. Sorry for all the bickering and nonsense. Rufus Sarsaparilla

Prison Break

I found few websites that talked about it. Here is the main source: TV.com

Prj 20:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

24: The Game images

Hello. I understand what you mean about the images. You see there have been many new images of people from the game that no one knows who the people are. This way people have a face to go with the names and also het to see what the characters from the show look like in the game. i hope you understand. i think we should leave them up at least for the time being. i apologize if i am causing a problem, i am just trying the page look better. and i think the added images of charcters does make it look better. thank you. CTUFieldOpsDirector

My Name is Earl Awards and Nominations

I found a new reference for the nomination and fixed the link. Thanks for keeping an eye out! Dmleach 17:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Episodes of Lost

My mistake. Sorry. -Simon Crowley 21:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Heyer8472

Please see User talk:Heyer8472 and User talk:162.83.74.104.--M@thwiz2020 23:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not hostile in anyway. I love the show and all i am doing is just contributing like you. Sorry heyer8472

Stubs

Hello, I just wanted to mention that the {{stub}} template should not be used anymore. In the future, you should use a template from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types for stubs. Where (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Article naming

Just a quick note to remind you of article naming conventions. Try and avoid capitals where possible - I just move Friends Awards and Nominations to Friends awards and nominations which is more correct according to our Manual of Style. Good luck with the continued efforts to chop down the Friends article. violet/riga (t) 00:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry!

Thank you for the infomation about the talk pages. I didn't know that you wanted them in a certain order. I will try to remember it. ^__^

Dposse 00:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

TV.com "Editor Retirement" addition

Hi, I was the one who submitted the above referenced bit. I do have cited sources but unfortunately, if I did post them they could be modified and deleted to reflect opinions not originally expressed. Also due to the setup at the forums at TV.com, they delete threads after 30 days - thus if the first situation does not happen, then by the default I will lose my source.

Is Wikipedia or yourself willing to host or archive the cited sources I have? B/c, if not, I'm in a lose-lose situation when the information is entirely factual. I purposely with held names of the administration to avoid "singling out". I'm as unbias as they come, but after experiencing the situation personally I have as much right to convey the facts as I saw them cut-dry-and-clear. It was not meant to be a personal attack. Also the "Heavy Criticism" area was not added by me, but was entirely factual or at least very undeniably the intrepretation expressed by the main consensus - Do not censor people's right to have an opinion about what they witnessed in an majority.

Please do not let your biasness influence your decision to remove these areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.253.85.103 (talk • contribs) January 16, 2006

I failed to clarify what I meant by cited sources. Not to take a stance of paranoia and so on, I have cited sources from the staff/administration themselves. It is simply the fact I know they will eventually visit this wiki page and remove the instances [on their end], they themselves admit to. There are numerous blogs citings owned by the staff admitting their mistakes and further cited information made public by the staff. This is not some "research compiled by disgruntled TV Tome users". Would you get off that horse already? It's never coming back. The bit I sent was merely an attempt to incorporate history with fact and mix it with the present, rather giving further an explanation of why so many guides are editorless, seemingly have an editor but no real activity, etc. A problem that is on going to this day. This is amounting of a historical trek of how far TV.com will come, let's say 3 years down the road from now. The inital problems have to be documented, then as time goes on the corrections and improvements to the site have to be equally be noted. This will serve as a time-table basis of how efficiently demands/suggestions were met, and overall how many problems have been addressed. To say any site is free of error, is ludicrous. Have you visited IMDB.com?

If you'd like I could add a History section too? No, not documenting TV Tome, but referring to effects currently experienced by users @ TV.com. Are you even registered there? You must recognize some of the problems previously documented before my excerpt. Do not discern upon yourself to say what is fact, and what is not. There is credible evidence, I just know when I present it you're going to try to remove it anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.253.80.169 (talk • contribs) January 17, 2005

Numbers

Sorry - I didn't notice that it was a rerun. That's for catching in so quickly! --M@thwiz2020 01:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Lost - The Hunting Party

Jtrost -- as a frequent contributor, I just wanted to make you aware that a user, Heyer8472, is continually making edits to the Lost Episode Guide that are contrary to the MoS in regards to tone and style, not to mention his (or her) numerous spelling mistakes. I have reverted much of the edits back to a grammatically correct version. He (or she) is also including slight examples of OR and is including multiple unnecessary details. Thanks! Danflave 17:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Lost Barnstar

In recognition of excellence in editing Lost (TV series)

For your continued diligence in editing the Lost (TV series), I award you the "Lost Barnstar." Thank you for keeping watch over the articles! Please feel free to award this barnstar to those you believe deserving. —LeFlyman 21:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Friends spinoff of "It's a Guy Thing"

The rumor that Jennytablina contributed was in the same article that I referenced. I've re-added the the entry, made the reference, and made it more neutral.

sohmc 18:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC) (Crossposted on User talk:Jtrost and User talk:Jennytablina)

Proposed wording for "Wikipedia is not a fan site"

Hi, J

As promised a while back, I've cleaned up the proposal for "Wikipedia is not a fan site", and put it up for pre-posting at: User_talk:Leflyman/Not_a_Fansite. Please take a look at the proposed wording; you may also want to review the comments when I first brought it up on the talk page for What Wikipedia is not in November, which I've copied to the bottom of my "sub-page". Let me know what you think! (Also, I fixed the link to your Talk page from your User page) —LeFlyman 20:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Loyola University Chicago

Thanks for backing me up with the Verifiability of Loyola University Chicago. One of my projects this semester is to develop that using University Archives up at the Lake Shore Campus. Thanks! --Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Survivor: Panama

I requested semi-protection for Survivor: Panama, we have been spending too much time reverting edits from vandals, if you agree please let your voice be heard Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection Thanks! AdamJacobMuller 01:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Green Day vandalism

vandalism? well honestly i suppose obnoxiously posting a warning about reposting the semi-block on the green day page is vandalism but in the long run it will really help you ya know. I have this strange problem where i can't control my urge to vandalize the green day page, as well as its subordinates. so if you dont put the block back on the page i might lose myself and vandalize it a whole bunch. sincerely --MonkeyCMonkeyDo 02:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Lost edits

JTrost -- just wanted to let you know I have not forgotten about the episode guide edits. Work has been crazy this week (and I usually do my editing during down-time!) I still plan on doing those edits soon. Question: Is it possible you could leave messages for some of the regular editors of Lost and it's various pages telling them about the project and asking them to sign up? I am worried many have not seen the messages and the "sign up" sheet on the Talk page. What do you think? --Danflave 18:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hey, Jtrost. I've finished with my group of seven, but it seems things have slowed down a bit on this. I'll try and pick up some of the remnant next weekend, time permitting, unless we're changing our plans again. Baryonyx 01:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Tv.com

As I've stated before to Perfecto, how the hell can I give you people a creditable source when the majority of this happened behind closed doors, and you already told me that all the proof I gave you once before in the talk page about Tv.com (that came directly off their website) wasn't allowed. I find it bullshit that every modirator allowed these people to raise hell with everything involving their website on here. When we tried to prove that they were full of crap, we were told we needed more proof. And when we asked for them to show records and proof that we were lying, they couldn't. AND YOU STILL TOOK THEIR WORD OVER OURS. Plus, not only are we not allowed to post the truth about them, but we can't even have a listing for alternative websites like EpGuides.com and TvRage.com. If you're going to keep this up and only take the point of view of the bigger sites around here, then I see no reason to discuss it any further. It's already been establised that the mods here think we're full of shit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.252.235 (talk • contribs) February 2, 2006

Lost trivia

I added an item of Trivia that you reverted referring to a scene in the episode "Fire & Water" as it may have future consequences. I, also, realise that it may, just, be a continuity error. If, at the current time, we do not have a definitive answer who decides whether it is a valid item of trivia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedTom (talk • contribs) February 3, 2006

Would you mind handling User:67.80.3.198 again?

I imagine you're probably better than me at handling these things. He's 3RRing again, and although I'm getting better, I'm not familiar enough with the rules to do anything about it. Do we have a consensus on the whole links issue? I can't really tell. Thanx! --Maxamegalon2000 22:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Lost trivia (2)

I'll agree with you that that trivia ("Gary Troup" <-> "purgatory") perhaps isn't of interest to general audiences, but I hardly think it's a coincidence that a fictional name would just happen to be an anagram of any single random word. (Multiple words I can understand though, for example "Ethan Rom".) --Pentasyllabic 23:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Office citation

Done. (I used the BBC News Online article on the story). I didn't think it was necessary before as there was already a citation for the info on the main page of The Office, the parent page of the list, but thanks for picking me up on it. :-) Angmering 23:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Question

How do I move something to the dictionary? MosquitoJeffrey 03:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

...for the edit to my userpage. I have been wanting to look up how to do that, as it appears ok on some monitors, and not ok on others. But you saved me the trouble. Thanks! --DanielCD 20:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

re: 24 cast

I do not really care if you just list the main cast for only season 5. I was confused at first glance, which is why I bolded the sentence "This is a list of the main cast for Season 5." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

TV.com Citation

TV.com edits Hey. Can you please cite the information you added? Please see WP:CITE on how to do this.

Sorry, but cite what? Everything I added is completely off the top of my head, common knowledge among pretty much anyone who uses the site, and easily verifiable. I have no idea what it is you want me to do. Agent0042 04:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: Prison Break references

Hello, I think I was in the middle of adding them whilst you messaged me. I know I probably shouldnt, but I usually add the references after I add cotent. Iam almost done (I think), I just need to go back and find one more...Forever young 14:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Lost Season 1: Exodus

When we go to make the final changes to the Season 1 page, we need to change the title for Exodus. The DVD is pretty clear: the 2 hour finale is Exodus, Part II. There is no Exodus, Part III on the DVDs, and, considering that the second hour has never had a cold open, has never had its own separate titles, and is a direct continuation of the previous hour, we can't really justify continuing to split Exodus, Part II into separate episodes. Baryonyx 07:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ethan Rom

Actually, I read the fact that "Ethan Rom" in an anagram for "Other Man" on the page for The Others. I have no idea if anybody with the show confirmed that this is meaningful or not, but look at it. It is a fact that it is an anagram for "Other Man." Also, what are the chances that they would give a guy who was probably an Other a name that could be rearranged like that? I think it's as obvious that his name came about like this as it is that Locke's name came from philosopher John Locke. You can put a note on the thing or remove it all together if you feel you should, but I'm just saying.-Platypus Man | Talk 13:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Lost: UK airdates all wrong?

Hi,

I posted a similar message on the "Airdates" page. Somehow, the table of season one airdates has become mixed up. The UK dates now appear in the France column, but I don't know how to rectify it, since I'm not familiar with the French details... Are you able to fix it? Chris 42

I'll have a go, but if it looks like I'm going to make a mess of it, I'll bow out gracefully! Chris 42 21:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the Irish, French and UK dates (at least) have all moved one column to the left (therefore putting each under the incorrect header cell), but I can't see which of the other columns has caused this to happen. I'll stick an update on the "Airdates" talk page in the hope that someone who is better informed on the transmission details can fix it. Chris 42 21:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Jtrost, thank you for leaving an edit summary pertaining to the 3RR rule in this edit. However, you must also warn the user using {{3RR}} (for their first warning) or {{3RR2}} (for their final warning). I have just warned the anon editor. Thanks. --M@thwiz2020 21:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Paula Hart

Hey. I went ahead and reverted your post-speedy deletion blanking of the Paula Hart AfD, and closed it with the appropriate comment. You don't have to blank your AfD noms if the article in question is speedied; speedy deletion is also an appropriate AfD closure, and should get noted to avoid confusion :)

Thanks for helping to keep Wikipedia tidy! Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

re:AutoAFD script

When put into your JS file at User:Jtrost/monobook.css (assuming you set your skin to monobook in preferences) it creates an afd tab on the top bar which if clicked when on an article adds the afd template to the top of the article and in a seperate window creates the proper AFD subpage with the default template already in place ready for you to fill in the details. It also opens up a new window with the current daily listings subpage to which it adds the subpage name. All you have to do at that point is to add your reasoning to the afd page (and press save) and press save on both the listings page and the article page windows. It just greatly simplifies the process of putting up an AFD. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 05:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sayid's age

He says he was 23 when the Americans invaded (ie, Desert Storm, 1991), in "One of Them". That's my justification for the 1968 birthdate, and approximately-35 age. Is there a reason you reverted this? Radagast 01:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; can we agree his year of birth is undisputed? Radagast 01:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

Thank you for welcoming me into the wikipedia community! Dan 03:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Lost character bio edits

Nice job on the Shannon Rutherford and Libby edits. Also, I applaud your energy and stamina on constant reversion of fancruft etc., too. One more fan mention of Henry Gale being Dorothy's uncle is about to make me scream. <grin> -- PKtm 03:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Gight

hi - ive just changed the stub template you put on gight. unless you want to start riots i suggest you use {{scotland-geo-stub}} not {{england-geo-stub}} for places in aberdeenshire! :) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

lets just say its like saying montreal is in the usa. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

TV.com Citing

Okay, how would you like to format this? I have linked to both TV.com's FAQ and their page for features and updates. Is there something else I should be doing? Agent0042 23:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Exhaustive work on Lost

You are doing an amazing job, J-Tro. Thank you for quickly and efficiently fixing those hideous edits by TheGreenSaga. Danflave 05:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles that reference Pagong

What is the correct course of action for articles that reference the (recently deleted) Pagong article? Should Pagong be made a redirect to Survivor: Borneo or just delinked? --BullWikiWinkle 20:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Lost reruns

the reruns are a very serious issue and they shouldn't be disregarded like that. many lost fans are upset over the reruns! how hard is it to figure out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.34.28.148 (talk • contribs) February 24, 2006

Minor Edits

RE: this edit {minor} Reversions should never be marked as minor AdamJacobMuller 00:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

24 "spam"

why am i not allowed to advertise my site on the 24 wikipedia pages?? it's just a personal fan site..

theres tons of links all over wikipedia to personal fan sites.. like this from the Jack Bauer page:

Blogs 4 Bauer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.212.119 (talk • contribs) March 1, 2006

Re: Thanks

You're welcome, but it's not totally fixed. You have tables overlapping tables and need to redo them. I fixed it in HTML, but don't know how to fix it in the wikicode. -- J. (?) @ 21:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Survivor Episode Titles

Are those titles official? They seem to only appear on fan sites and not on [CBS.com/survivor] -- Eddie, Friday March 3 2006 at 17:44

Thank you!

Thank you! Hi Jtrost/Archive1, thank you for your support in my Rfa! It passed with a final tally of 86/0/0. If you need help or just want to talk let me know! Again, thank you! – Dakota ~ ° 22:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of my RfA

Thank you for your support of my successful request for adminship. I am honoured that the nomination was supported unanimously and that the community expressed confidence that I would use the tools wisely. If you have any concerns please let me know on my talk page. Regards A Y Arktos 21:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

24 Season 5

you removed 24 season 5 from the dvd table as you viewed it as idle speculation. however i have several sources stating its release date of september 25th 2006, which i will list below

http://www.play.com/play247.asp?pa=search&searchtype=allproducts&searchstring=24+season+5&page=search

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000EBCJN6/qid=1141550290/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-2055057-5702809

http://www.dvd.co.uk/product.asp?id=3300701000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munnp001 (talk • contribs) March 5, 2006

Criticism of Family Guy

Hey Jtrost ive begun cleaning up factual errors and citing this page as well as the criticisms on the main page, perhaps you could lend a hand? Also thank you for your work on List of Lost episodes its starting to look pretty good. Discordance 16:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The fair enough i had suggested on the talk page it be merged with the main article but i began finding sources for much of what had been said in the third section so i deleted my comment as i wasnt sure about how much would be left. A quick glance and the only really questionable paragraph is the one on family guy being banned. I do agree it invites cruft and the simpsons section is particularly badly written. Discordance 16:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:24 Promo.JPG

Hi. Recently you removed the {{nsd}} template from Image:24 Promo.JPG without providing a source for this image or a fair use rationale. If you can provide both, please include it on the image description page. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Reference posting

Thanks for the catch. Didn't know how to do it before, plus I wasn't sure how to cite a DVD I was watching, but low and behold, someone had already one it. Thanks JurgenHadley 22:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

User Page

Hello, I love your user page. Did you make it yourself, and if so, do you mind me using it as a template for mine?

Thanks Clq 19:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Dharma Initiative

Hi, I'm the guy whose edits you just reverted. I've made it a personal policy not to revert to any of my edits someone else threw out, but I just wanted to say that I try not to be speculative and I try to be helpful. Oh, and snazzy user page, by the way. -Litefantastic 22:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Kim Bauer's age

Since you left a message on my talk page (instead of conducting discussion within the talk page of the article, which I always thought was standard practice), I am leaving this on your page as a courtesy. You wrote:

Hi. I reverted your edit because no official source has stated her age. All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable and you may not conduct original research. Yes, Kim is probably in her 20s, Wikipedia is not the place to publish these kinds of original thoughts. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

My response is as follows:

Actually, the source was verifiable and is readded. Adding is not an "original thought".

Calwatch 00:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics

The copyright law on lyrics is quite clear, and can be reviewed here. Unless Wikipedia obtains permission to reproduce lyrics, including them here is considered a copyright violation. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 17:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What didn't make any sense to me was that you deleted one of the song's lyrics, but completely ignored the other song's lyrics! Why didn't you also remove: "I'm wide open so pass the ball my way / And I'll dribble that shit right up the parquet / Nothing but net as I show you how I flow / Swish motherfucker now listen to me blow"? It's just as much a "song" as the "Right Behind You" joke-clip. -Silence 19:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Lost episodes

I will be working with each episode separately per List of South Park episodes, List of The Simpsons episodes, List of That '70s Show episodes, tv.com's Lost episode guide, Lost's official recaps, etc. I will be reverting your edits as each episode deserves its own separate article similarly to Mecha-Streisand, Bart the Genius, Eric's Birthday, TV.com Walkabout episode summary, Lost's official House of the Rising Sun recap, etc. If you want to help I welcome you to do so. —Joseph | Talk 19:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. If you beleive that I'm being hostile you should read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I will be reverting your edits regarding List of Lost episodes. I have shown you evidence of episode structures used in the past, even before the Lost articles were created. I have also shown you formats used by external websites. You should read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. If this is becoming stressful to you I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. —Joseph | Talk 20:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well you see, Talk:Lost (TV series)/Episode guide is contradictory to the format used in Wikipedia as a whole. You can not declare that to be a policy, a guide, or even consensus when you have the same discussion with different arguments scattered among different discussion pages (Talk:Lost (TV series), Talk:List of Lost episodes, Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 1), Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 2), etc). I suggest that you read and perhaps contribute to Wikipedia:WikiProject List of Television Episodes and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television episodes which recommends creating a list of episodes with each episode residing on its own article. If you want to make Lost (TV series) a featured article then feel free to do so, I haven't even touched that article. —Joseph | Talk 21:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Lost (TV series)/Episode guide was created on January 25 as a section under Talk:Lost (TV series), it was moved there on February 18. However, discussion about the splitting continued on different discussion pages on February and March. Specifically, User:Kahlfin posted on Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 2) that "this hasn't been decided conclusively". I don't have a problem if you want to create a list of episodes per season, but leave List of Lost episodes as it is and let each episode to have its own article. Whatever you wish to do with the Lost article or the list of episodes by season is none of my concern. As long as the lists link to the individual article of the episode in question I have no problem.

We are both having a civilized discussion and it seems that you are ignoring all the evidence, suggestions, and recommendations that I have shown to you for articles similar to these — created, discussed, and organized even before the list of Lost's episodes. Please, stop reverting my edits.

You should understand that a meta:wiki is not paper and that there is no reason to clog information together that could cause an information overload. These types of concerns have been discussed already, even before Lost aired. Here is an excerpt from that page:

Of course, a 100-page thesis on poker is useless to someone who merely needs an article summarizing the basic rules and history of the game. The purpose of a normal encyclopedia is to provide the reader a brief overview of the subject, while a reference book or text book can explain the details. Wikipedia can do both. Because Wikipedia is not paper, it can provide summaries of all subjects of interest and also provide exhaustive detail on those subjects, conveniently linked, categorized, and searchable for readers who want more detail.

The key to avoiding information overload is to break an article down into more than one page (long articles require many sub-headings anyway). For example, Poker can be broken into a basic "Poker" article which is only one page (about 30 KB) and links to "History of poker", "Modern popularity of poker", and variations of the game, such as "Stud poker" and "Texas hold 'em". These will be much more searchable.

There is no reason whatsoever to force a user or visitor to download an enormous page containing all the summaries of series episodes when he is looking just for one. This is the same principle not only followed by Wikipedia, but also by websites such as tv.com and Lost's official site itself.

You want all the Lost articles to become featured, I would like to see the whole project organized in a friendly manner while being easy-to-use at the same time. I'm positive that we can both work towards that, considering that they are both focused on making Wikipedia better.

—Joseph | Talk 22:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hehe it seems you kinda contradicted yourself there, you think it's not inappropiate but beleive it was. o_O Don't worry about that, we don't need to discuss personal beliefs (sp?). However I would like to point out that that is how wikis work. You should be aware that your contributions will be edited boldly by others. It is even given as a warning when you edit an article: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."

Anyways, back to the point. I haven't modified a whole category of articles, I beleive this has been a misunderstanding regarding the {{split}} template that I used on Episodes of Lost (season 1) without knowing that what I suggested existed already on List of Lost episodes, and that then a *different* user placed a {{merge}} template on Episodes of Lost (season 1).

How about this, we can remove the {{merge}} templates placed on List of Lost episodes , Episodes of Lost (season 1) and Episodes of Lost (season 2), while leaving Episodes of Lost (season 1) and Episodes of Lost (season 2) as it is. We can then link the different categorizations in a "See also" section. Is that cool? User:Discordance said something similar was done with the Futurama episodes, perhaps the same can be done with Lost.

I didn't create List of Lost episodes nor the individual articles of each episodes and I have no problem whatsoever with other editors wishing to maintain a list of episodes per category. I only want a List of Lost episodes similar to List of South Park episodes and each episode having its own article. If you want to maintain an article such as Episodes of Lost (season 1) and Episodes of Lost (season 2) then please feel free to do so.

I'm willing to help with the Lost articles and so are you, so how about we sit down and have some tea? =)

—Joseph | Talk 20:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear, I dont think this is worth arguing over either, I think working with joseph and CWS and seeing how things go is a much preferable situation all around things will sort themselves out in the end. Theres no reason both sets of articles cant exist for awhile thats what happened with futurama. Discordance 20:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? I haven't touched Episodes of Lost (season 1) nor any template whatsoever. Seriously, wtf are you talking about? I'm only editing List of Lost episodes and the individual episode articles. I think you are confusing me with someone else. You can always check my user contributions or check who edited what by browsing the article history. —Joseph | Talk 20:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Lost episodes

I have asked joseph to revert the list of lost episodes page for now, but please be aware that community consensus is to eventually create individual articles. I respect the lost editors decision to not go ahead with the undertaking at this time. But you should consider your ultimate goal to have good individual articles for each episode. There is no rush however, if youd rather work on other things i see no reason to push the lost editors into more work at the moment. Discordance 15:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly i'm with joseph on that you do not own the articles and while I do respect the work youve put into them, blanking someone elses pages is extremely rude. If Cws125 wants to make individual articles you have no right to blank them. Discordance 18:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Cws125 does not need permission from anyone to create the new articles if he wishes, if you wish to have them replaced by redirects it would be proper to list them at AFD and request as such. I will stand by any decision from VFD regarding the matter. I also welcome you and the lost editors to open discussion here: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes if you wish to stop people from ever creating the individual articles. Discordance 19:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Danielle Rousseau

OK, I ventured my opinion on the Talk:Danielle Rousseau page, as you requested. Overall, I'm seriously worried about the increasing cruft quotient (not sure if it's actually increasing, or maybe it's just taken longer to hit me over the head with it). It now appears that the individual Lost episode summaries have taken root, or did I miss a discussion? I can't really keep up, which is, I think, what you were worried about for all of us if this proliferates unwisely... Anyway, thanks for the invitation to discussion. Keep up the good fight! -- PKtm 03:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear God!!!

I am gone for like 2 weeks, and I come back, and what has happened!?!? A Danielle page? TWO episode guides?? Separate articles for each episode??? Who are these hideous people (i.e. "Joseph") who've come along and basically SHIT all over our discussions and consensus? This is a nightmare! Danflave 17:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Can't disagree... I was gone myself for a week in that time, and it somehow gathered momentum to have these separate episode summaries. Not sure what we can do about it now. We have 40+ articles to try to expunge now... --PKtm 20:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• My feeling is there's little to be done to remove the new articles; they are unlikely to be deleted at this point. It's how Wikipedia tends to grow: organically, as new individuals discover articles and decide to spend some time "improving" them. We'll need to figure out a compromise between this new content and what already exists. Thing to definitely avoid is promoting a sense of "us" versus, um, the Others.—Leflyman^Talk 22:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for mediation: Danielle Rousseau

Heya, I have a placed a request for medation for the discussion of wether Danielle Rousseau should be an individual article on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. If you would like to participate please place visit that page for further instructions. —Joseph | Talk 23:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The Dharma Initiative

I'd like to explain why you're annoying me, and I hope that you'll sit through a bit of crucial backstory on why. I've been here since 2003, and although I tried to be a good editor, I had (and have) a tendency to make assumptions and predictions, something Wikipedia does not condone. So, for a while now, I've decided that when I'm unsure about something, I'll just add it and if someone else takes it down, then so be it. You, personally, are now exempt from this rule, because you are guilty of playing conductor on the topics of Lost. If it's speculation, or even a little like speculation, then I'll let it slide, but I've decided you are not a fair judge of what is and is not notable. You take something of mine that's 'non-notable' down, and I find out, I'll put it back. You're just a little to eager decide something is overkill, and throw it out. No hard feelings; I just want you to know where I stand on this. -Litefantastic 23:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. This guy needs to be curbed. - Shaft121 20:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

gotta steal some of your page :-)

Hi there. I came across your page through the Lost: Ultraviolet map discussion, and you have something that I need--your babel box, as you call it. If you dont mind, I am using it as a template for my own box of stuff (is it even called a babel box by wikipedia convention??) just because i dont know where the templates are. can you point me in the right direction? do you mind if i "borrow" that part of your page as a starting point?

thanks! Jeremys779 06:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• thanks for the help!Jeremys779 10:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hang in there!

Jtrost, I think you're doing a great job, leading the charge against the onslaught of fancruft and poor edits on the Lost articles, and standing firm for Wikipedia principles in the face of personal attacks, as in the one just two chunks above this one on this page. Keep at it; I've got your back and will assist in reverts of obviously speculative material. -- PKtm 17:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:OR

If you do wish to cite that reference, please don't do it in a speculative discussion about a fictional company in a TV programme. Thankyou. - Shaft121 20:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, this evidence was taken from www.thefuselage.com, a forum run by the creative team behind lost. Seeing as this is where they both prove & disprove theories, I would say it is gospel. - 22:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Request to participate

Hey, Jtrost, wondered if I could ask you to put any commentary you might have into the discussion on Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 2)#computer, where there's some disagreement about whether WP:OR should apply with respect to identifying the Apple II at the start of Season 2. Thanks, -- 00:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Your signature

hey there, when you sign something there are like extra stuff at the end, how do you "fancy up" your signature bro,, thanx!--Muhaidib 00:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks alot bro! it works :D check it out (it's kindda based on your thing if it's cool --muhaidib (^Talk | _#info) 03:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

24 Cleanup

Hi. I disagree with yours "cleanup rules". In the infobox should contain the cast listed on "starring", and not a link to the "main cast", since the main cast section contains characters that aren`t credited as stars on the show. I also believe that some of the characters on the main cast section should be classified as "recurrings", since on the show they are credited as "guests" (what can be called as "recurring"), different from the stars. But, I won`t go against these rules, and will do the things as you tell. I just REALLY can`t stand when Carlos Bernard is placed as part of the "ACTIVE main cast", since he is gone for good, and isn`t a part of the cast anymore. Thank you, and sorry for the disturbance.--Rockdolly 00:18, 6 April 2006

Trying

It would be better if you'd participate more in the discussions on the DI. We really do need some kind of majority consensus - really - and if you'd particpate, it would be helpful. I'm not, by the way, attempting to undo everything you do, nor are you (that I can see) attempting to undo everything I do. We just have different viewpoints on what does or does not count as 'speculative', and if we can reach an agreement, a) the article will work better, and b) I won't have to sound like a politician anymore. -Litefantastic 16:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Widmore

Why do you want to delete the Widmore article? I may could understand merging it with another Lost related article, but I don't think it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossman93 (talk • contribs) April 9, 2006

Rose & Bernard

Hi. In the future could you please use the talk page to discuss changes such as creating new pages for characters and adding new links to the template before you actually do it? And a Rose & Bernard flashback has not been officiall confirmed anyway, so those changes you made are extremely speculative. Thanks. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

okay.. but I am talking about this week's episode, the one in "march sweeps" and it has been confirmed by ABC and givin all the info, the ones we are not sure about are the ones in the "may sweeps" including(Two for the Road, "?", Three Mintues and The Foundation part 1&2), so thats why I am not writing anything about them, I have enough info to add Two for the Road to the list but not "?" and futher so I didn't add them to the list. I didn't create a page for "The Foundation part 1&2" because the title is subject to change. anyways remmember how Locke in season one wasn't that important in the couple of episodes, I am not saying they will be as important, personally I don't think bernard and rose are gonna be important, anyways, we'll talk again after april 12 ok :P,,, peace --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 14:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Lost overlinking

Hi! I've now had two reversions by an anonymous new user who has basically decided to rip through the Lost article wholesale, overlinking like crazy. I've left a polite notice here, but can anything be done about this individual who obviously has no respect for others' hard work? Chris 42 16:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I've gone back and fixed them by stealth, one section at at time. Hopefully he'll leave well alone now! Chris 42 17:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Please actually watch the Lost TV series =

If you think the titles of Drive Shaft's albums are non-canonical, you either missed an episode or weren't paying attention because they're straight from the show. I've added a citation and re-inserted the information. 4.89.241.62 14:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge Vote on Ultraviolet map

Hi I was thinking about taking this whole merge discussion in an entirely different direction. Instead of merging the info on the poorly named Ultraviolet map into the unfocused The DHARMA Initiative. How about we expand on Silentplanet's idea and create sub sections on known Hatches?

Remember the "The DHARMA Initiative" article is supposed to focus on what it is. Adding more information to "the Swan" only shows that this hatch should be expanded upon in another article. The title of this article after all is not "The DHARMA Hatches." To me it looks like we should put in some information about what exactly the DHARMA Initiative is. We should give some history on it maybe include the information on the film and then some brief information about the hatches and what they are. Hatches that we know more about like "The Swan" should have its own page that would then contain information such as "the Map", "The Timer", etc... I think that this is a more reasonable solution and would also make it a more logical solution as an encyclopedia article. Please let me know what you think (in your talk page)! And if you do agree please note that on your merge vote! Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 04:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Lost formatting

Hi. I've written a couple of examples of my recent suggestion here, and would appreciate your opinion. --Kizor 18:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Danielle Rousseau

Thank for your input on my discussion page. I am not interested in an edit war on this article so I suggest that the page is left as seperate from the secondary characters page. The reasons for this are already on the discussion page for this article by both me & other contributors on my side of the discussion. The fact is that my revert messages are as incitesul as yours, thus they cannot currently go against the Civility guidelines. I do not appreciate you stooping to the level of attempting to get my account suspended with the RRW warning. Which is why I gave you one. With relation to the article, I am hoping that you see sense and leave it as it is since I am perfectly willing to keep standing up for my (& others) beliefs with relation to it. Thankyou for your time - Shaft121 20:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Jtrost: yes, as I see from the above, it appears to be a standoff. It is, however, at least a positive sign that this editor finally responded to our repeated efforts to bring him into dialog on the issues (well, sort of), rather than simply leaving extremely hostile comments on your edit page, using profanity on article talk pages and in edit comments, and also editing out perfectly civil and constructive comments that you've left on his user talk page. I think that it's indisputable to ANY impartial observer that these behaviors are antithetical to Wikipedia policies and norms, but as for those who persist in them, there's little we can truly do. My suggestions on how to deal with it? I don't have a lot of helpful ones, unless we can see some further movement (on his part) towards civil, reasoned discussion rather than the behavior I just mentioned. I think that it's absolutely critical that we not get dragged into any of those behaviors ourselves, however tempting it may be (and I certainly find it that, I must admit). Each and every anti-WP-policy action should be politely pointed out on talk pages, preferably (I think) on article talk pages as opposed to user talk pages, so that the negative behavior is noted publicly. I will begin by posting something to the talk page on the Danielle Rousseau article, noting the number of reverts going back and forth, and suggesting that there be civil, reasoned dialog.

Hang in there, and don't give up the good fight: as I said, any impartial observer would clearly disapprove of this user's behavior. -- PKtm 03:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, again. I took a closer look at today's revert history. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Shaft121. -- PKtm 05:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Lost survivors table

Do you not think it important or useful that there be a table of the known survivors that includes their occupation, age, and where they are from? I can imagine that several people, like myself, clicked on every characters page just to see where they are from, etc. A table with a wide overview of who they are, what they do, where they are from, and how old they are would be useful and save some people trouble. It should exist on the characters page or on the "Island Census Page." However, i'm in agreeance that the Island Census Page is perhaps unnecessary given the "Characters" page.

Perhaps the information in the "survivors" table could be merged with the "main characters" listing. This table could include a bracket such as "status" i.e. living or deceased as well as a bracket for "actor" as is the case with the flashback characters table. There could also be a "secondary characters" table as well, which includes similar info.

Let me know what you think. I know that people can often get into a pissing match over editing and I'd like to avoid that.

I'm putting it back for now. I spent a good amount of time doing it and I know it's going to be helpful.

Danielle Copyright

That's simple, you have placed a possible copyright infringement notice upon that page. Having read the information on the Lostpedia site, I found this text... "The license Wikipedia uses grants free access to our content in the same sense as free software is licensed freely. This principle is known as copyleft. That is to say, Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement). Wikipedia articles therefore will remain free forever and can be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of which serve to ensure that freedom.

To fulfill the above goals, the text contained in Wikipedia is licensed to the public under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). The full text of this license is at Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License."

Since the text used on that site is licensed to the public & Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others, I feel that just placing a link to the original article at the bottom of the page would remedy this. Agreed? - Shaft121 14:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Danielle_Rousseau"

The DHARMA Initiative Split vote

I hope you don't mind a general reply to what most if not all of those opposed to the split on The DHARMA Initiative have said "we don't really have enough information on just the stations to justify an entire article just for the stations." I would like to point out that it is exactly the opposite, there is very little information about "The DHARMA Initiative" since everything seams to be about the stations. I decided that I'd see exactly how much of the article actually talked about the Initiative compared to the Stations. So I grabbed the sections that talk specifically about those subjects and I used the word counter found inside of MS Word to judge the content. Here is what I found:

Initiative focus on the page : These sections were the "intro" "History and purpose" & "Dr. Marvin Candle"

• Pages - 1
• Words - 242
• Characters (no spaces) - 1,309
• Characters (with spaces) - 1,544
• Paragraphs - 7
• Lines - 23

Stations focus on the page : Everything not in the Initiative focus, except for "Trivia" "References" & "External links" were included in the Stations.

• Pages - 4
• Words - 1,476
• Characters (no spaces) - 7,143
• Characters (with spaces) - 8,574
• Paragraphs - 46
• Lines - 132

The judgment that this page doesn't have a lot of info about the stations seams to be incorrect... the problem is that going by word count only (and almost exactly) 1/7th of the page actually talks about the Initiative while the rest of that 6/7th talks about the stations... This page is heavily focused on the stations and it should be acknowledged as such. So we have a choice to create a new article about the stations or re-name this article to reflect its focus!

I hope that this helps and Please put your reply in the comments section of the Initiative talk page. -- UKPhoenix79 02:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Lost Experience

You excited about the upcoming Lost ARG? :) Danflave 17:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello there

Hello there, my name is Charlie Marrow & I am a new user. I notice that you appear to be one of the main guys with regards to the Lost (TV series) articles on Wikipedia. I would like to get heavily involved in this as I am such a huge fan of Lost. I was wondering if you could give me some help by telling what I need to write & what I need to avoid with regards to the Lost articles when I make my contributions. Many thanks - Charlie Marrow 21:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thankyou for your kind introduction. I also sent the same message to PKtm seeing as he appears to be as active as you. I hope I can make a good contribution, but feel free to correct my edits if they appear to go against the rules. Many thanks - Charlie Marrow 22:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The LostNav template

Hey there Jtrost, I know we had our differences in opinions in the past, anyways, I am thinking of expanding the LostNav template to have more space to put stuff in, it's not a vote or anything, the contents can be discussed, we are just talking about the template it's self, we'd love to hear your opinion. --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 16:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

not necessary?

why don't you think it is neccasary that Mrs. Klughs name sounds like "Clue"? Couldn't it be important? i mean, it's like the writers of Lost is saying that she is a clue by making her name sound like the word "clue". dposse 01:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Rock Star: Supernova - multiple bands

There are two bands with this name. You reverted this article Supernova (band), meanwhile a couple days ago (I think) I started a new article Supernova (Rock Star band) because the guy whose changes you were reverting changed that one to the punk band Supernova. How do we make this all make sense? You seem much more experienced here on Wikipedia than I am. I'm looking to you for advice. As I said in one of the discussion pages for either Supernova, or one of the Rock Star articles, it's almost like we need a sub-disambiguation to occurr for the two bands. Agree? Or do you have a better idea? Just trying to avoid this page from being changed back and forth in the future. Thanks. --Eric Jack Nash 19:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete of Leslie Arzt article

You may have noticed that an admin, King of Hearts, responded to the db repost by opining that the repost was not the same. I left a message on his user page, here, showing him the essential identity and asking him to reconsider his action. FYI. -- PKtm 15:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yellowcard

Hi, there! I saw that you've contributed to the Yellowcard page. I've been working hard all weekend to get it into an encyclopedia-worthy article, and I think we're almost there!

There's a short list of things that still need some work at the bottom of the talk page. If you could take a look at it, maybe add more things to do, or clean up whatever you see needs work, I would sure appreciate it.

Thanks for your help. Have an awesome day! Cathryn 10:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Smile

-- Malber (talk • contribs) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Request for Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/List of Lost Episodes, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Big Love

Regarding your removal of the Trivia section I inserted into the Big Love article, I am curious about your rather stringent application of WP:OR in the realm of television entries. From other articles, I've gathered that the standard of confirmation for things which appear to be allusions, easter eggs, et cetera, is considerably lower than it is for other factual matters. It would seem that you disagree with this laxity. I don't bring this up to be a dick, but because it seems to lead into a somewhat substantial policy question that you might have some thoughts about.

Anyhow, none of this actually applies to the edit in question. I was half-asleep when I wrote that and did something of a miserable job with it. In this case, it wasn't a matter of original research--the show's creators mentioned repeatedly during the press tour prior to its premiere that the UEB was based on the FLDS. I've included citations for that. The speculative part was where the UEB name came from. With the citation I've now included, as well as other Google-available material, I think that speculation is more like a statement of the obvious.

Thanks. Tom Lillis 19:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Your nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Futurama on Articles for Deletion

With regards to this edit, surely you meant to nominate it for MfD (Miscellany for Deletion) instead? Wikipedia namespace pages get discussed there. ;) Kimchi.sg 17:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Your signature

Hello there, I was wondering if you would please modify your signature to conform to the guidelines laid out at Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. The general guidelines are that signatures shouldn't contain images, they shouldn't contain unnecessary internal links or any external links, and they shouldn't be unnecessarily long in Wiki source. The reasoning for this final bit is that overly long signatures tend to overwhelm the actual comments in edit mode, making it hard to track down and respond to specific comments. You can fix your signature by removing any images and external links, any unnecessary links (like links to Wikipedian organizations, articles, or subpages in userspace), and removing excessive color, font, and formatting code. Thank you. Also, the edit counter is down anyway, so there's no reason to have that link. --Cyde↔Weys 19:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR

I filed a 3RR against the IP user in question ... but I'm at my max for 3RR myself. — Mike • 01:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, 3RR does make an exception for vandalism, it seems (WP:3RR), and I suppose you could argue his talk-page pasting puts him over the edge. But it's a gray area. — Mike • 01:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Our Crystal Ball Friend?

Our friend's at it again over at Episodes of Lost (season 3) and its talk page. Any idea for longer-term solutions — trying to get an admin to block the IP? It appears my 3RR complaint never resulted in a block [1]. — Mike • 00:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

== WikiProject Futurama ==

Hello Jtrost/Archive1,

I noticed that you have recently edited articles to do with Futurama. I was wondering if you would like to join WikiProject Futurama. Please add your name to the participants list and drop a line on my talk page if your interested.

Cheers, Jasrocks 07:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Lost

why was my lost edit reverted? User:Ryan2807 21:20, 24 June 2006 (GMT)

I added Trivia about the book club in "A Tale of Two Cities", and can't understand why you took it off. User:Codu

Your Request for Mediation

Hello, Jtrost

My name is ^demon, and I am going to mediate the case that you requested concerning the episodes of Lost. Right now, before we continue, I would like to know if you prefer public or private mediation. If you could just let me know over at your request for mediation, I would be most grateful. Have a pleasant evening.

Regards,
^demon^{[yell at me]}_{[ubx_war_sux]} /02:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion discussion on an article you started

AfD Nomination Eastland Mall (Bloomington, Illinois)

I've nominated the article Eastland Mall (Bloomington, Illinois) for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Eastland Mall (Bloomington, Illinois) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastland Mall (Bloomington, Illinois). Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Eastland Mall (Bloomington, Illinois) during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. Inner Earth 10:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Beginning Mediation

Dear Jtrost,

After requesting the preference of mediation, the consensus appears to be public, with one person not responding (and has appeared to have left the project for the time being), and one person abstaining due to being away for the summer. This being decided, let us begin. I figure the easiest place to centralize all discussion can be the talk page of the RfM. Thanks for your time, and if you'll go there now, you'll see that I've begun a discussion on the topic. Thanks very much.

-^demon^{[yell at me]}_{[ubx_war_sux]} /11:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose this week's WP:AID winner

Edit counter

The old edit counter (the one used in your sig) is defunct. Inertoit's Edit Counter works fairly well, but I don't know how to link it into a sig. As an example, the counter in your sig shows around 3000 edits, whereas Inertoit's shows 3400+. Just thought I'd give you a head's-up. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 15:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! essjay's version seems more linkable than Interiot's. I've linked my count into the Epsilon in my sig. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 15:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Of Survivor & Original Research

I hope you realize what you are doing to my watchlist. ;) --Maxamegalon2000 19:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are you reverting my changes rather than discussing the issue at hand? I posted a pretty solid example of my problem with these sections at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Survivor:_The_Australian_Outback Doctofunk 19:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Contact

if you would help me in retrieving the correct meaning of some phrases in the sixth episode of kyle xy i would be more than grateful. The 89 guy 12:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The latest swirl on Lostpedia inclusion

Hey, Jtrost... Wanted to ask you if you could consider lending your thoughts and perspective to the very strong push right now to include Lostpedia as a link. See Talk:Lost (TV series)‎. Conversation for now seems to be fairly dominated by the people advocating such. Thanks, PKtm 19:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)

Hi! I reversed your change to this article because I think that you may have misread it. Please take a look again, and if you still feel it is POV let me know why. Thanks, —JeremyA 13:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you click the link? Setback (architecture) —JeremyA 14:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Please click the link that I placed above. In this case the term 'setback' is referring to a commonly used architectural feature, as opposed to a problem. Take a look at what Emporis has to say about it, or this article ("Moreover, its setbacks pay homage to the Art Deco-era skyscrapers that made Chicago a living architectural museum. And it manages to reach for the stars without stepping on its neighbors. In fact, to its neighbors, it will appear to be an equal. That's because the first setback is at the same height as the cornice on the Wrigley Building, the second is the same height as Marina City, and the third is at the top of the IBM Building across the street.").

I did't add this text to the Wikipedia article, but, as you can see, whoever the author was didn't choose skyscrapers randomly, they are the neighbouring buildings, which the architects have taken into account by incorporating the setbacks into the design of the building. Personally, I am not keen on the design of the Trump Tower, but I think that the setbacks are an interesting idea, so I am interested to see if they work as the architects intended. —JeremyA 16:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC) A quick addition: I have just been browsing the architects website and they mention that they designed the setbacks to match these three buildings; you can read it here. —JeremyA 16:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I am perfectly familiar with Wikipedia's policies. However, your latest edit to the Trump Tower article suggests that you still don't understand what a setback is—there is no negative connotation in the use of this word, it is simply referring to a commonly used architectural feature. The Sears Tower (designed by the same firm) also incorporates setbacks, as mentioned in its article and clearly seen on the photo of the tower. —JeremyA 17:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD

It had no-consensus. WikieZach| talk 20:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Reason for No-Consensus: First, you are wrong. Both sides have quite an amazing protest of keeping or deleting. I am at this point going to PROPOSE that you try another AfD. But in my view, the policies of Wikipedia show no reason for deletion. They had a guy from the show on there. That alone is reason for relevence. WikieZach| talk 21:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Episode vs. season articles: your view

Hey, I've noticed that you've stayed out of the more recent discussion, largely, on episode articles vs. season articles Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes. Am I truly, as Elonka states, the last holdout? I'd appreciate anything you have to contribute, either on this page or to me on my talk page. Right now, I'm "going it alone", which is never all that fun. I'm leaving a similar note on LeFlyman's talk page. Just wondering if you two have changed your view, or gotten weary of the struggle, or what. Thanks. -- PKtm 20:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice job on 24 template

Finally someone did this. --Jasonflare 17:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Tail Section Flasbhack, questionable

Hey Jtrost, I don't think I quite understood where you said the discussion about the Tail Section/None discussion was. If you could find me a link, that would be great, thanks. -- Wikipedical 23:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Lost episodes

I'm glad i am not the only one that agreed the caps should be reinstated, i talked to the Bainer and he said he would have no problem if the screencaps offered critical commentery with the text on the right, i'll be able to retake all the season 1 caps so taht they are all the same and all offer visual commentery but i do not have s2 on DVD yet. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jtrost for talking to ed, I am back on editing, it has been a long break since I "really" edited lost pages, during the summer i was just ignoring people's edits,,, just want to let you know I'm on ur side and if you need any help you know where to find me --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 14:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Lost mediation

The Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience is awarded to you for extraordinary patience and perseverance in achieving a successful unanimous resolution to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes. Thatcher131 04:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 

I too would like to offer my thanks for your participation in the mediation. It's my hope that we'll now all be able to put our differences behind us, and work together towards our common goal of providing high-quality Lost articles on Wikipedia. And I'm excitedly looking forward to our having a front page featured article on Monday!  :) --Elonka 21:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.  :) I'm a firm believer in team-building, and one of the things that helps convert a "group" of people to a "team", is actually conflict, as the individual members of the group figure out ways of navigating through conflict, and working out ways to communicate with each other in order to achieve common goals. Ultimately I think the entire project will be the stronger for it. Full steam ahead!  :) --Elonka 22:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Lost: Featured article

		The Lost WikiProject Award
		Congratulations on Lost (TV series) making it to main page featured article. Your hard work on the Lost project is appreciated! --Elonka 00:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job!

In recognition of excellence

• Drum roll* For your work in regards to Lost, I award you a barnstar.thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the second time I've received this, but as the saying goes, the more the merrier. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 20:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Are there any guidelines anywhere on what needs to be done, in order to get a Lost barnstar? --Elonka 18:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there are no official guidelines, just diligence and dedication to Lost related articles. Do you not have one? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You can see who currently has them, by reviewing the list at the bottom of Image:Lostbarnstar.jpg. --Elonka 16:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) BTW, I'm not sure if it's on your watch list, but I'd like to draw your attention to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines, where we're doublechecking that all episodes are in adherence with the mediation guidelines. Your participation would be appreciated, to help "initial" next to episodes that you're happy with. --Elonka 20:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

 

DHARMA Initiative stations

Please do not change, delete or revert without discussion. Let's keep a consensus ThanksDudeman1st 01:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just would like your comments on The Hydra so we can get that up and running ASAP.Dudeman1st 06:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I meant The Hydra at DHARMA Initiative stationsDudeman1st 06:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Lost episodes

Hey Jtrost, I was wondering if you'd be willing to help me out with revising the List of Lost episodes page before the FL candidacy expires tomorrow. I'm referring to the points listed by people who 'oppose.' Thanks. -- Wikipedical 00:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate your comments, am still in support of the Wikipedia project, and will continue to contribute (especially to the Lost articles!) without interruption. Thanks again! --Elonka 19:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images in lists

Hello, I see you have contributed your thoughts to Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. It's been dead for a while, but I have archived it and taken a new fresh start. I hope this time we will be able to achieve something as I have summarized the main points of both sides (feel free to improve them) and I call you to express your support or oppose on the concrete proposal that I have formulated. Thanks, Renata 02:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Lost episodes

Hiya, when you have a moment, could you please pop in to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines#Name suffix, to confirm that we still have consensus on the agreed guidelines? Thanks, --Elonka 14:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)