User talk:thedemonhog/2006

Welcome to thedemonhog's second user talk page archive,

from the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Sandbox
Logs

Edit count

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Thedemonhog. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, thedemonhog, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Thanks for uploading the season 3 promotional image (Image:Seasonthree.jpg) this a good illustration of the cast and a valuable addition to the article. However, you did not add a fair use rationale when uploading this fair use image. It will have to be removed from the pages that feature it if no rationale is provided. For advice on how to produce a rationale see WP:FU and for an example I have written a rationale for the image of Mr Eko and the monster (Image:Lost ep210 12 360x240.jpg). Apologies if you were planning to write a rationale later, I just thought some of this information might be useful if you hadn't done so before.--Opark 77 01:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from an article. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. Shannernanner 11:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Further Instructions

I've changed back almost all of your edits that assert that Further Instructions was the last flashback episode for many of the main characters. What Locke saw was a vision and not a flashback so it should not be classified as such. This is clearly seen by the fact that Desmond shows up as a pilot and Ben at the metal detector. The vision was just a metaphor for the situation the characters are currently in and was not a flashback in any way. Gdo01 20:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Tainted poll?

Hi. Sorry to bother you. You participated in a television episode article naming poll which now lives at this location. Some feel that wording changes have compromised the results of that poll. If you don't mind, could you please take a look at what is there now and add a quick note at WT:TV-NC#Looking for anyone who objects to the last poll to say whether your feelings on the matter remain the same? Of course you can feel free to read over the entirety of both links for more information. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Kate's image

You need to stop reverting Image:Katelost.jpg. There is no good reason to use the cleaned up promo picture over an image of Kate that is more "in character". Not only that, but you are reverting the image without updating the image description page, where I've made a specific write up to the fair use rational and source for the image. I really don't understand why you are objecting to that image. Is there a better one I can find, or will you revert any image that is not the promo image? -- Ned Scott 02:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

LOE for Lost

You are advised to discuss your addition on the talk page, it is clearly disputed. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR Warn

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)