Talk: Tom Friendly

Capital One commercial

I don't frequent this site, so I don't know if this has already been brought up. I'm posting this here instead of on the actor's page because it has to do with the character(maybe). There's a commercial for Capital One that has been airing on TV lately that has a character who looks alot like Tom/Mr.Friendly. In it, the character is a hobo who is traveling in a train car. I haven't been able to find out if that actually is M.C. Gainey in that commercial, but it looks exactly like what his character formerly looked like on Lost, with a beard and ragged clothes, and the voice sounded exactly the same. If it's not him, they found a really good impersonator.

The alleged "Tobias Funke" connection

Where has this been "hinted" at? By whom? Was it on a podcast? --Miss Mary Mack 20:20, 14 June 2006 (PDT)

As for the hillbilly comment...

Its just that, as smart as Sawyer is, I highly doubt he's clever enough to come up with the Ezekiel biblical reference on his own. And being a redneck himself, its probably more likely that Zeke is reference to "Mr. Friendly"'s general appearance as a mountain man.

I've reworded the statement

As being British, I may not have known the use of the word. I have since researched it and added the point back. However, as religion is a major part of the back story of Lost, I believe that it could be a reference to Ezekiel, we still haven't had more than 1 flashback of Sawyer at this point (mores the pity as I think he is probably the most scarred, and genuine person in the story and is much more fascinating than the sheer amount of Jack flashbacks) so we don't know about his faith yet.

Maybe in Britain you havebn't gotten more than one Sawyercentric episode. If so you have at least two more coming.

Retitling the article?

Should this character entry be retitled to Mr. Friendly and a redirect from Zeke to Mr. Friendly, as this is the name that the writers of Lost use? (referencing the 23rd January 2006 official podcast)

According to IMDB...

...the role is credited as Zeke.

IMDB is user edited and controlled. The executive producers and writers of the show refer to him as Mr. Friendly as do many of the unofficial podcasts. I would have thought this would be a more accurate reference to take than the famously nicknamed Incorrect Movie Database --Plkrtn 15:56, 23 January 2006 (PST)

Well...

Like I said, I don't think Sawyer runs that deep when he assigns nicknames to people. I also think you don't want to get too distracted by the religious stuff in the show, its subtext, its not context. There's a big difference. People can be religious, and have religious beliefs and yet a show about them not actually be religious in nature. I would say that faith itself and not Faith in God (religion) plays a real role in the show.

And to add, as an American, I've had friends who behave much like Sawyer does in the show. So, again, I don't think the nicknames have such a complicated meaning. Lets look at some: Freckles, Mr. Clean, etc. --Circeus 14:53, 23 January 2006 (PST)

I do think this site has a duty to the subtext of the show as much as the context though. If the subtext is there, it should be in the article. Maybe both should be in a theories area. Yes I agree Sawyer's nicknames have not had any religious context, but it could be placed by the writers and producers still... We know what they are like! --Plkrtn 16:00, 23 January 2006 (PST)

Zeke from Muppets?

There is a character in The Muppets Show ([1]), which is called Zeke. And is quite similar to Mr. Friendly. Check the image. ([2]). So, maybe it's only the nickname given to Mr. Friendly by Sawyer? --Raven66 11:00, 26 January 2006 (PST)

Since the producers of the show are not calling him Zeke, my vote is that this is just a Sawyer nickname - and probably in reference to the muppet. Anything less comical just wouldn't be Sawyer's style ;-) --Joseph 18:11, 22 February 2006 (PST)

"Well that's an interesting Theory"

If you look at the statement in context it becomes clear that he's not referring to the idea that Ethan was a spy for the Others but the idea that they aren't as strong as they claim which Jack used Ethan being a spy as evidence for. Right after that Zeke yells "Light 'em up!" and they find themselves surrounded by lit torches. Looking closely at the stills from the HDTV recording, you can see there is a person holding each torch.

There could be a continuity problem, but "3 MInutes" implies that the torches were automated, at least most of them. Sauron18 01:02, 29 May 2006

Identity

Personally, don't see him as being Gerald DeGroot, for a couple of reasons:

In every picture we've seen, DeGroot wears glasses - Mr. Friendly doesn't, with or without a beard. Ofcourse it's possible that the orginal glasses from the eighties have broken, he's not squinting though. He could wear contacts, but that would mean he'd have access to the 'Outside world'. which would contaminate the project.
DeGroot is possibly the head honcho, Mr. Friendly is just a subordinate. It's my understanding that Alvar Hanso's participation in the project is mostly financial & being on the supply side of things, DeGroot handles the research and is in charge of the productional side of the project.
He talks about a man much wiser than us, possibly DeGroot. Would he talk about himself in that way?

--skks 05:25, 9 March 2006 (PST)

The line he quotes is from a speech Alvar Hanso gave to the UN.--Tricksterson 10:35, 9 March 2006 (PST)

The Lost Experience ARG, seems to be pushing that Zeke is DeGroot via a likely in-game blog. --Bernini 09:14, 10 May 2006 (PDT)

That Channel 4 blog is based on the British airing, which had only aired through 2.2 upon posting. I believe that the blog has inside info about the ARG, but not the show. Just a theory, like the theory that circulated in the US during the fall. --Jajasoon 12:38, 10 May 2006 (PDT)

Zeke among the 815 survivors

Reformatted the theory and propered the picture. I don't think it even looks like him. The hairline's off, also, thematically it doesn't seem likely. --skks 10:27, 1 April 2006 (PST)

I also think that it's not him. According to IMDB the actor is Geoff Heise and also appears in S01E05 ( White Rabbit ) as a doctor, when Jack has to identify his dead father. Anyway here is the picture :

--Nihilit 08:16, 7 April 2006 (PDT)

Zeke the army guy

I could swear when I was watching this before that "Zeke" was also the army guy that Sayid makes a deal with when he was in the Iraqi Republican Guard. Am I totally off-base here?

Oops, answered my own question. I'll leave this in here, in case anyone else was confused like me. Though they look similar (imo), Mr.Friendly is not the same person as the army guy. This character's name is "Joe Inman", and is played by Clancy Brown on the television show.

He's still one hell of a shot with the throwy things that he cought michael with

talk contribs 18:49, 18 May 2006 (PDT)

Zeke's Weapon

The weapons category says he used a bola to take down Michael but to me it looked like he used a stone from a sling. Any input?--Tricksterson 10:37, 20 May 2006 (PDT)

it sure looked like a bola to me, as it had multiple stones connected with rope. Anyone got a screenshot so I don't have to look? -- Ramirez Selvarn

It is definitely a bola. It was as Ramirez said above. Multiple stones connected with rope. Thrown across Michael's legs, wrapping around them and pulling him to the ground. --Plkrtn 05:28, 23 May 2006 (PDT)

I concede, that it was a bola has been confirmed by a transcript I read. Time to get glasses prescription changed.

Why wouldn't he just use the tasers from Otherville? Maybe there is a ban on what they can take into the mainland? --GunsmithCat 11:39, 24 October 2006 (PDT)

Zeke on Kimmel

Has anyone figured out what he said backwards? Jengod 04:32, 23 May 2006 (PDT)

No but FWIW there's a copy of the clip over here

I could record and turn the audio around easily, but none of the clips anyone's pointing to actually feature the guy talking - they just cut to him ominously. --Moo 07:21, 27 July 2006 (PDT)

Image

So, I hadn't changed the image to an unbearded Tom because the bearded one was his actual portrait shot. If you can go with promo pics it's better than screencaps (more detail), so if the choice is for the unmasked Tom then we could post the Unmasked-Tom promo, or keep the portrait shot they gave us, even if he has the beard. What do you guys think? Sauron18 22:47, 27 May 2006

Well, since no one seemed to really object I reverted it to his portrait, despite the Fake Beard.--Sauron18 00:58, 29 May 2006

LostDude, please look at the discussion before simply reverting, otherwise we'll keep going in circles. --Sauron18 14:05, 31 May 2006

Misc Name Info

Some interesting info about the name "Thomas" THOMAS

Gender: Masculine

Usage: English, French, German, Dutch, Scandinavian, Biblical

Pronounced: TAHM-as (English), TOM-as (English), to-MA (French), TOM-ahs (German) [key] Greek form of the Aramaic name Te'oma which meant "twin". In the New Testament he was the apostle who doubted the resurrected Jesus. According to tradition he was martyred in India. Famous bearers of this name include philosopher and theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas, philosopher Thomas Hobbes, inventor Thomas Edison, American president Thomas Jefferson, and novelist Thomas Hardy. Rxhector 22:47, 28 May 2006 (PDT)

The torches

You know, it could be that the torches are supposed to be automated, but for whatever reason the producer decided to have someone hold them and we weren't supposed to see the people.

Thomas Werner Mittelwerk?

Can someone (specifically Nlanfran, the person responsible) tell me why the theory that "Tom" and Thomas Werner Mittelwerk are the same person was removed? I was surprised no one else made the connection. It's certainly a great deal more plausible than some theories posted here. At the very least, in the interest of consistency, the same theory should have been removed from Mittelwerk's page. Junkeragentseed 12:30, 24 June 2006 (PDT)

Mr. Friendly speaks with an American accent. Thomas Mittelwerk speaks with an Austrian accent. They look nothing alike, as Captain Insano pointed out. And so on. It isn't a plausible theory at all.

Because they look nothing a like.--Captain Insano

Also in the 'present day' as part of the Lost Experience, Mittlewerk is in Copenhagen whilst Mr.Friendly is presumably in the Pacific Ocean --Nickb123 (Talk) 16:11, 24 June 2006 (PDT)

Possible link to Demolition Man?

I was watching the film Demolition Man the other evening. The 'leader' of the people who chose not to accept the new society and live underground was called Edgar Friendly and was referred to as 'Mr. Friendly' at least once during the movie. Could there be a connection?--Slime1982 09:31, 4 July 2006 (PDT)

Hmmm. You should post that in the "Theories" section.--Invertebrat 12:04, 4 July 2006 (PDT)

Why would you watch Demolition Man?--Captain Insano

'Demolition Man' is a great sci-fi movie, though it's underrated, the dystopian future where you get fined just by swearing out loud is scary. And it has bootylicious Sandra Bullock. --GodEmperorOfHell 07:42, 27 July 2006 (PDT)

No Mr. Friendly in Season Four?

[This was originally posted by User:Irieied in the Theories section. I moved it here. --Invertebrat 21:11, 14 August 2006 (PDT)]

Recently spotted at a Whole Foods in Los Angeles, CA. I asked him why he was not in Hawaii, he said, "The rest of them are in Hawaii." Perhaps Tom gets killed off in Season 3 and is not in Season 4.

Renaming to just Tom

We know the character's first name is Tom. Its the only name they refer to him in the show, Mr. Friendly is a producer nickname outside the show, that the fans use. Surely we should just call this article Tom as Mr. Friendly directs here anyway? --plkrtn 17:44, 8 September 2006 (PDT)

I would wait. We'll find out a lot more about the Others later this season anyway so we might end up moving it again. -- Jabberwock talk contribs email - 17:47, 8 September 2006 (PDT)

I second that. --Marik7772003 15:24, 11 December 2006 (PST)

Homosexuality

Does anyone actually believe that he is truly gay?? I think that people are posting it just to be funny, but I don't know. Since Kate "isn't his typed" he just may not have a thing for brunettes, but blondes or redheads. Just because he said "you're not my type" doesn't mean that he is homosexual. Both sexes say it all the time, but should we believe that everyone who says "you're not my type" is gay? I don't believe it. --Marik7772003 16:13, 5 October 2006 (PDT)

He seems very upset at the thought of losing Ben in the episode "I Do"
- If Ben and Tom are in a relationship I will actually die of laughter.--Magick insane 19:23, 21 November 2006 (PST)

Maybe he was around those polar bears a little too much :b But in all seriousness, maybe his orientation is the reason why he bugs Sawyer so much in particular, you never know...... --Mighty Rearranger 16:35, 5 October 2006 (PDT)

There have been rumors that this season would have a gay character, and in the last column from Ausiello [3] he makes the speculation about Zeke. Sure, there much evidence for it, but it is a plausible explanation, and not any more farfetched than much of the other Theory stuff that gets posted. --Minderbinder 16:40, 5 October 2006 (PDT)

I think its more likely he is making a slight joke at Kate's expense. I think its more of a knowing comment about her current situation. Possibly the Losties are contaminated with something and that's why he wouldn't desire contact ('not his type' = shes not one of the Others... yet) and indeed why her clothes were burnt and the next two week will be unpleasant as they are acclimatised / decontaminated. --MRNasher

I like the idea that he's gay, for two reasons. The first is a cast with no diversity gets boring. Lost has been good with this, so they decided to have a gay character. (plus it may be a way to increase their ratings by bringing in the "did you hear what they did" audience". And a gay audience.) Secondly, if he is gay it opens up what the others to consider "good people." A lot of people still sadly believe that just because someone is homosexual they are a "bad person" so it's nice to see the Others have gay member in their community to break that stereotype. Bhold1 18:23, 10 October 2006 (PDT)

The way he says "you're not my type" is kind of comical - he seems amused by the idea of being attracted to Kate. Seeing as though Kate is a very pretty woman, I don't think it's too far fetched that he's gay.

- These are my thoughts exactly. 'Not my type' is a joke, because it's usually something you say when you don't like someone's personality, not their physique. He says it to assuage Kate's thinking that he is being a pervert. --Moo 04:49, 24 October 2006 (PDT)

Also, would the Others really send a heterosexual male to be with Kate in the showers? They seem quite civillised from what we have seen so far --Magick insane 10:45, 24 October 2006 (PDT)

Interesting point, although they do make her wear a skimpy sundress (and smash rocks in it). They don't seem that concerned about her modesty. --Minderbinder 11:08, 24 October 2006 (PDT)

I'm with Nasher. Assuming his orientation seems like a jump, honestly. I took the "you're not my type" to be more of a reference to Kate's role as a Lostaway and an intruder on the island, the hatch and the expirement rather than anything else. Heck, considering some of the theories surrounding The Others, it could mean anything to her being from off-island to being "simply human". --GunsmithCat 11:14, 24 October 2006 (PDT)

Both the laughing "not my type", and the reprimand for being seen without "his beard", could easily be double-entendres, which would be in keeping with the show; suggesting it without actually saying so. I mean, "Mr. Friendly"? --The CyberSlug 12:53, 27 October 2006 (PDT)

But, of course, no one has called him "Mr. Friendly" on the show. It's a nickname given to him by the crew. --Marik7772003 15:08, 30 October 2006 (PST)

Faux Beard?

Why do we have a picture of Tom wearing the faux beard? Shouldn't we have one without him wearing it? --J a m e s W. 14:22, 16 October 2006 (PDT)

Because it's the best promo picture there is of him and it's how we first met him. Considering it was a big part of his character I'd say it's good there.--Sauron18 15:05, 30 October 2006 (PST)

Main Image

File:0Tom.jpg

Um, could we change the main image back to the other one? I know it's an "in disguise" pic of him, but still it's the best portrait of him and IMO illustrates his character the best (up till now). And that new pic of him is just creepy in a bad way. --Sauron18 15:05, 30 October 2006 (PST)

Perhaps a less creepy and more complete version would be better? --Sauron18 21:48, 3 December 2006 (PST)

Aren't we overanalyzing just a smidge?

A couple of the "Not my type" theories are a little too "out there" -- he's not human, he has a fear of women, she's not his blood type? Come on, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar: either he's gay, or he's not physically attracted to her. --Amberjet11 08:54, 1 November 2006 (PST)

I think it's really doubtful that he's not gay. A fear of beautiful women is definitely "out there."--Moo 08:39, 2 November 2006 (PST)

Plus it is very doubtful this [4] is a marriage or engagement ring. For one, men don't wear engagement rings. Plus, it looks like a class ring from high school or college or a championship ring from sports. Men's wedding bands are simple and thin. --Moo 08:56, 2 November 2006 (PST)

Who says men don't wear engagement rings? I know men who have.

Overanalyzing is a curse of Lost. Sometimes people see something on screen, like Jae's suicide, and they can't accept it for what it is, which is a suicide. Tom isn't attracted to Kate. It doesn't mean he's gay, it just means he doesn't find her attractive. I don't think Claire is attractive, but it doesn't mean I'm gay. Its almost a level of arrogance of the fans. Almost a "no one can find Kate unattractive" stance, which is farcical. -- Plkrtn talk contribs email 00:23, 22 November 2006 (PST)

coding problem

Does anyone know why the edit buttons are clumped together in the theories section? I can't find any way to fix it, but I don't know much about wiki code. --Moo 08:39, 2 November 2006 (PST)

Either on Juliet's side or pretty dumb

Wouldn't Tom find anything weird with Jack giving Ben a kidney inscision during a spinal surgery. Its really just common scence, he must have not liked Ben either, or hes just is really dumb, obviously The Others where never taught the parts of the body

If he were on Juliet's side (and thus wanted Ben to die) he would have just said something like "Glad to see you've decided to take Ben out for us". Instead he panics and does what ever Jack saks for. This does show that Juliet's power base, if she actually has one, does not include Tom, Pickett or the guy with Pickett.--ASEO 07:03, 14 November 2006 (PST)

The kidney incision happened rather suddenly, and even if the Others were taught basic anatomy, that doesn't mean they'd be able to recognize what section of Ben's lower back was being attended by Jack -- nor did Tom have the best angle to see what Jack was doing. When Jack started shouting demands, everyone did what he asked, including Juliet, who said nothing about a plan to "take Ben out for us." --Amberjet11 14:19, 15 November 2006 (PST)

Good catch. Juliet if in a different "Other Faction" from Tom, may be having to keep her desire to see Ben dead quiet for now. I think Jack took a pretty big risk in is action by banking on the fact that Tom wasn't in with Juliet.--ASEO 14:23, 15 November 2006 (PST)

Good point, but considering that Tom and Juliet behaved exactly the same once Jack made the incision, it would be impossible for Jack to discern if Tom was on her side or not. I think anyone who wants Ben "taken out" has to keep their desire a secret, because they would be unable to communicate with each other, unless they use cue cards and secret videos -- I don't remember if Juliet's tape was a stationary picture or not. If it zoomed in/out or panned or moved in any way, you have to assume, then, that there was a cameraperson in the room with her. --Amberjet11 14:29, 15 November 2006 (PST)

If Tom and Juliet were in it togather, I think they would have been able to just say. "OK Jack, let him die." Jack may have been able to make noise that would alert anyone outside of the operation room, but then Tom and Juliet would have had a scape goat..."Oh my God! He killed Ben!". Which may be Juliet's plan anyway. I think Juliet is playing along to fool Tom.--ASEO 14:34, 15 November 2006 (PST)

Tom's Weight Gain

Has anyone else noticed Tom has gained a lot of weight over the last season or two? Does anyone else think this might be intentional somehow? I would think most television shows would have an issue with an actor gaining a lot of weight, especially a show like this that takes place over such a short period of time.

He looked skinner because he was wearing loose clothes from the decoy village to trick the castaways. If you notice Pickett looks heavier too. --Mr. Crabby (Talk) 14:38, 31 January 2007 (PST)

Problem with a picture in the article.

It might just be my browser, but the photo of Tom with the caption "Tom revealed without a beard, at the Pala Ferry dock," is covering up some text. -PsychoYoshi 10:49, 16 November 2006 (PST)

Rename

As Ben's page isn't "Benjamin Linus (Henry Gale)", Tom's page's title shouldn't include his "alias". That's why I added a section to the Others' infobox where you can write their alias. I think To'm page should be "Tom (Other)". ODK Talk Sandbox 14:24, 31 January 2007 (PST)

Agree-Mr.Leaf 14:35, 31 January 2007 (PST)
Word! (I agree) --Mr. Crabby (Talk) 14:36, 31 January 2007 (PST)
Agree--lewisg 14:39, 31 January 2007 (PST)
~~Agree~~--Princess Dharma (banned)
Disagree Based on Santa's comments below. --Princess Dharma (banned) 09:03, 6 February 2007 (PST)
Disagree - The parenthetical is not intended as an alias; rather it is there as a disambiguation from other incidences of "Tom". Note that other articles with a different history of names have been simplified, e.g. "Persephone" became "Rachel Blake (Persephone)", which was then subject to the argument above, and renamed to "Rachel Blake". However since (Mr. Friendly) is intended to function as a disambiguation, your argument that "an alias is not necessary in an article title" is true, but not applicable here. If you provide another argument that 1) a disambiguation is not necessary (for example if we discover his last name), or 2) a different disambiguation is preferable, then I will reconsider my opinion. -- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯^Talk 20:55, 1 February 2007 (PST)
Agree - Comedy240 11:32 3 February 2007 (PST)
Agree--Gonzalo84 08:59, 6 February 2007 (PST)
Agree -- This title should be updated. "Mr. Friendly" doesn't refer to the story. Obi-Dan Kenobi's suggestion of "Tom (Other)" is better than the current title. But my first choice would be "Tom", because that is how the character is currently known in the story and a parenthetical is not appropriate in this case because there exists no other article with the same title "Tom". (Articles that merely have a word in common as part of longer titles don't have the same title.) -- Cheers 10:21, 6 February 2007 (PST)
- Tom Brennan.--Princess Dharma (banned) 10:29, 6 February 2007 (PST)
Disagree - It should stay as-is until we know his true name. Mr. Friendly is the production name for the character and when the character was introduced he was listed in press releases as "Mr. Friendly". Current press releases name him as "Mr. Friendly/Tom". -- Jabberwock talk contribs email - 15:11, 6 February 2007 (PST)

Interesting point. That really seals it for me, since that's as official as it gets. -- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯^Talk 16:47, 7 February 2007 (PST)

Disagree - People who started watching the show late deserve to be able to find articles too. -BearDog 15:17, 6 February 2007 (PST)
Agree - People can still type "Mr. Friendly" into the search box and are redirected to this article. Also, as he is never addressed as "Mr. Friendly" on the show, why would new viewers be typing that into the search box anyway? I highly doubt they would actually seek out ABCMedianet press releases from a year ago...Shadow Ultra 16:34, 7 February 2007 (PST)

I don't know if your argument satisfies the case of using "Other" vs. "Mr. Friendly" for the following reasons: 1) New users will type in "Tom" which redirects to this page. 2) Any users who somehow happen onto Tom (disambiguation) will see "Others" noted in the disambig line. 3) Note also that we have precedence for using official names, such as Patchy, which is not a name used in an episode. -- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯^Talk 16:47, 7 February 2007 (PST)

Agree: for the reasons mentioned way above by Obi. Although I quite agree with Santa that it is successfully doable the other way around, IMHO Tom (Mr. Friendly) will remain a misleading factor to new Lost fans or less aware ones, who might very much belief that this is a nick that was actually used on the show events. Given that I'm a post-season 1 fan, I recall myself falling for that at my early days with the show because of this article's label.-- 01:58, 11 February 2007 (PST)
Agree: My reasoning is a little bit different. I believe "Mr. Friendly" was just a nickname given in the American podcasts, and was primarily a US based fan name. So if the argument to keep Mr. Friendly in the parentheses was more so that international viewers behind S2 finale could find the page, not sure if it would make sense, because I suspect they are not even that aware of the fan name (and they can still find it with redirects if they are). Unfortunately, we can't really cater to the international crowd that doesn't stay up to date anyway, as per the spoiler policy, LP is updated for US show dates. Also, if they are confused about where to find this guy, they can go to Others and see the thumbnail gallery to know where to find his page. --Pandora X 04:30, 11 February 2007 (PST)

I see little difference between calling him Tom (other) and Tom (Mr. Friendly). Both are titles of disambiguation, and I prefer the status quo since that is how the character is listed in press releases. Jabberwock talk contribs email - 10:30, 15 February 2007 (PST)

So, right now there are 9 “agree” and 4 “disagree”. I basically agree with the new reasons Nomad and Pandora brought up, and it seems that there are enough reasons to change. Although I understand Santa's reasons, I think we should follow the format that is being used in Jason (Other) and Adam (Other)'s articles. ODK Talk Sandbox 10:55, 17 February 2007 (PST)

Remember these are not votes, these are discussions. The summary of arguments include:

Agree:
1. Consistency with other articles on Others with parenthetical disambigs (e.g. Adam (Other))
2. Post-season 1 consistency
3. Is not known as a name internationally
Disagree:
1. Official name by the creators of Lost (e.g. similar to Patchy)
2. Functions fine as a disambiguation (i.e. it's not that an alias is tacked on), and the listing on the disambiguation page reads "one of the "Others"", which will cover users for whom "Mr. Friendly" alone is insufficient do disambiguate.
Some debunked points:
1. Search box terms are irrelevant because of existing redirects
2. Agreed that aliases do not, in themselves, belong in article titles (but here the alias serves as a disambig).

Feel free to edit this summary outline.

Note, this all goes away if we ever discover his last name. -- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯^Talk 18:26, 17 February 2007 (PST)

Agree, but with Santa's note above --Blueeagle islander 00:59, 19 February 2007 (PST)

Agree: "Use noncanon nicknames only as a last resort, when canon names are not known" - taken from MOS. It does say, "If the character goes by a very common nickname, maintain it in quotes (")", but (Mr. Friendly) is neither a very common nickname, nor is it in quotes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Triptolemus (talk • contribs) .

Keep in mind that the MOS is a proposed policy and referred to the use of quotes as a middle name, such as Hugo "Hurley" Reyes. When the article title is used for disambiguation the general practice here is to put it in parentheses. Jabberwock talk contribs email - 15:15, 21 February 2007 (PST)

Agree The name Mr. Friendly is getting too old. --J a m e s W. 11:10, 23 February 2007 (PST)

Agree - No one calls him Mr. Friendly any more. It should just be added to the trivia section and the article renamed. -Chris^[dt7] 11:10, 24 February 2007 (PST)