Why have my edits been reverted? Those posts are in clear violation of rule 6. Princess Dharma (banned) 13:16, 21 February 2007 (PST)
- They are not discussion, they are separate theories in their own right as to what "hostile" means. Just because they have two "**s" doesn't make them discussion --Nickb123 (Talk) 13:20, 21 February 2007 (PST)
- See rule 6, bullets 1 and 2. Jabberwock talk contribs email - 13:20, 21 February 2007 (PST)
Bullets 1 and 2 where not there when I made my edits so I am sorry of I could not see them in addition I was stopped from deleteing something that was blatantly denouncing something else. That certainly belongs on a discussion page. --Princess Dharma (banned) 13:23, 21 February 2007 (PST)
- Its an alternative theory that is just as good in its own right. By your logic, a theory of mine that the Others are good would have to be deleted as someone else denounced it by suggesting they're bad. They don't cancel each other out --Nickb123 (Talk) 13:25, 21 February 2007 (PST)
- Alternative theories aren't mutually exclusive. Jabberwock talk contribs email - 13:30, 21 February 2007 (PST)
No I was stopped from deleting that thing about the cast list for Enter 77. Princess Dharma (banned) 13:28, 21 February 2007 (PST)
- The sysop rollback function recursively reverted your edits back to the last user. The Clancy Brown comment should actually be removed to the discussion page, but instead you just deleted it. Jabberwock talk contribs email - 13:36, 21 February 2007 (PST)
Right now I'm mad why should I have to move it if the a*****e who put it there couldn't be bovered to himself. Please can we end this covnertation I'm very angry now and I don't want to engage in a flame war especially not with a SysOp Princess Dharma (banned) 13:43, 21 February 2007 (PST)
- Please don't take things personal here. Editing and maintaining the wiki is a group effort and we depend on the more experienced users to help the new users that aren't as familiar with policies and guidelines. Also, you may want to review the policy on personal attacks (LP:NPA). Jabberwock talk contribs email - 13:47, 21 February 2007 (PST)
- The issue is just deleting peoples' theories with little reasoning when they are their own theory. Just because they're linking to a previous theory doesn't mean its trivial discussion. The idea is to keep bickering counter-theories to the talk, but not all opposing reasoning --Nickb123 (Talk) 13:47, 21 February 2007 (PST)
You have done EVERYTHING you can to undermine my role in this conversation.
- 1) You modify the template after I make the edits and make out that I should of known of this.
- 2) You have taken this and then twisted my reasoning behind the edits.
- 3) You have suggested I move the post when that is not my job. I scouted the page and found something that needed to be deleted if it was important it would be put on the discussion page in the first place.
- 4) You claim I had little reasoning when I have just explained my reasoning.
As a result I will not take this further. I will not edit any other theory page. Those newbs are free to screw them up all they want. I think you have approached me with completely the wrong attitude. Please do not continue this conversation or it will devolop into a flame war. Princess Dharma (banned) 13:56, 21 February 2007 (PST)
- I really am sorry you feel this way. The edits to the template were made to clarify the existing guidelines. There is a big difference between "must" and "may" and things are open to interpretation. You don't need to stop editing the theory pages.
- Modifications done to clarify the existing policy since it was evident that this policy was misunderstood.
- ?? Not really sure what the basis for this statement is.
- It is the responsibility of all editors to improve the wiki. If something belongs on a discussion page then it should be moved there rather than just deleted.
- Nick's statement referred to you not leaving anything in the edit summary. That is the place where you should note your reasoning.
- Im not really sure what the source of your anger is here. Hopefully my response will help to explain things. It's possible you're reading an "attitude" from my statements where it wasn't intended. Jabberwock talk contribs email - 14:11, 21 February 2007 (PST)
- I really am sorry you feel this way. The edits to the template were made to clarify the existing guidelines. There is a big difference between "must" and "may" and things are open to interpretation. You don't need to stop editing the theory pages.
I don't think I should waste time delving out reasoning beyond trivial edits and please don't tell me what is my responsibility. I choose to edit Lostpedia and so it should be my responsibility to do what I want to do. Princess Dharma (banned)
Please drop it, no matter what I say you will twist my words. I don't wish to continue this I am annoyed that I have been approached in this way. Princess Dharma (banned)
- What's to drop? Please explain how I am twisting your words. What would be a better way to approach you? Jabberwock talk contribs email - 14:16, 21 February 2007 (PST)
You are diliberately trying to poke a response out of me and it is unfair. If you wish to continue this fine have fun talking to yourself. Princess Dharma (banned) 15:33, 21 February 2007 (PST)
- It's unfair to other users for you to presume that you can use vulgarities on this site. I think it's time for you to step back and re-evaluate your posts. Please calm down and do not swear on this wiki or you'll receive a time-out. Jabberwock talk contribs email - 15:39, 21 February 2007 (PST)
Other users have sworn and not been threatened in such a way Princess Dharma (banned) 16:16, 21 February 2007 (PST)
- If you are aware of other users misbehaving you should notify a sysop. Jabberwock talk contribs email - 16:48, 21 February 2007 (PST)
I had a thought about Kelvin last night - is it possible he is also an Other living / working in a station? Perhaps there are similarities between Mikhail and Kelvin...when we first encounter Mikhail he is manning a station on his own, in a Dharma uniform, and also claims to be "the last surviving member of The Dharma Initiative". Kelvin also claims to have joined Dharma, and if true, he is in fact the last surviving member. Just a thought, didn't want to risk putting it up in the theories section. Any thoughts on this?! Weapon 02:31, 1 May 2007 (PDT)WeaponWeapon 02:31, 1 May 2007 (PDT)
The bottom of the page has a synopsis of Lord Kelvin's Machine that bears little resemblance to the book by Blaylock. It looks like an attempt to make the book fit into a theory. It's a steampunk murder mystery with time travel and underwater escapades, not a guy keeping his electromagnetic machine from being turned on for fear of catastrophic results. Someone reading the page is going to get the wrong idea as it sounds like a perfect match for the Swan. It's interesting due to the name Kelvin and for various physics references to magnetic fields, but the similairities end there. The references to 4 and 16 border on Hurley's fanaticism.--Kingmob 14:17, 13 October 2007 (PDT)