FANDOM

User talk:Cgmv123
30 items per archive


Premiere

Your edit regarding the premiere is incorrect. It says "This is the first season premiere since the "Pilot, Part 1" in which all main cast members appeared." and then you say "its a two episode premiere, abc promoted it as a two hour premeire, we just count it as two" If thats the rule then Because You Left and The Lie would both be the premiere for season 5 because ABC did promote it as a 2 hour premiere and every character appeared on either 5x01 or 5x02. Thus your statement is wrong. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  02:21, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Podcast "Official descriptions" v "special notes"

Please join me on the Season 6 Podcast talk page. -Gvhftr Kijl

Why are you reverting all of my edits?

We discussed the Season 6 podcast. Why are you reverting edits to previous seasons? These edits were discussed on the main podcast talk page, I don't see you joining the discussion. -Gvhftr Kijl 22:31, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Removing from history

I don't know anything about how that would be done, sorry.  Robert K S   tell me  02:23, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

mia culp, wife of felix

I'm really sorry not to have put my guessing game in the right place. Thanks for not banishing me or blipping my work. I have put a warning at the top of my talk page, written an apology on my user page, and resumed transmission there. Please let me know if these actions are sufficient.

Best, --Lana hibner 13:44, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Edits to What Kate Does

I agree that the content may bne more suited to a different place, but where? I did not write a theory about Ethan Rom, but one in which his existence in this episode had consequences for when the alt timeline could have diverged from the original timeline. OK, you might suggest that it s more suited to a page which discusses theorties of the alt timeline, or actually its not a theory (this is true, there is no theorising, only a set of consequences). i thought long and hard about where to put it, but since partsof it had already been removedto the discussion page, I rewrote it and put it here. When you have read it, please discuss with me where you think it is better suited. --Sean Sheep 14:02, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

As I keep telling you, it is not a theory about Ethan.--Sean Sheep 14:17, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
Since this is a theory about the events of What Kate Does, then it belongs on that page. It is NOT about Ethan Rom,so STOP deleting perfectly good content. What you are doing is tantamount to vandalism--Sean Sheep 14:34, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
I have added the material to the Flash-sideways timeline/theory page. However, what is needed on each episode theory page are links to various character theory pages, (especially, for example, i this episode Kate, Claire, Sayid, Dogen, and general stuff like flash-sideways. I still do not agree with you. By following your reasoning we would not have any theory pages for each episode, since each theory is about something (MIB, Jacob, Kate, timeline, state etc.). My reasoning is that certain material is introduced in an episode. If that material has certain consequences, the place for discussing it is on the theory page for that episode. In my case, I am arguing that the ENTIRE Season 6 alt timeline cannot have been the result of any action by the time travelling losties. If that is true, it debunks a hell of a lot of theories, and a lot of people will need to rethink. This is not arrogance, this is a perfectly sensible position. If my reasoning is flawed, I want to know about it, and I will retract it or rewrite it . If it's not flawed than as many people as possible need to see it. The Episode page is the place I will get maximum exposure.--Sean Sheep 14:52, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
  • I have now posted a suggestion on the [[Lostpedia talk:Theory policy|Theory-Editing discussion pages. Please read this and comment. --Sean Sheep 16:52, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

]]

  • What is this Nazi's problem Sean? Who threatens someone on Lostpedia? "You have 5 minutes to move this or im going to delete it." Stop being such a tool kid, Lostpedia is NOT YOURS, and you DO NOT have final say in what stays and what doesn't, and what needs to be moved. This is a democracy, not a dictatorship, and I vote that Sean's placement of this theory is perfectly acceptable. It may not be how YOU want it, and there may be other appropriate places, but there is nothing wrong with his placement. You are an arrogant prick and you think you know everything about Lost and how the theories should be arranged, but you dont. I know this might be hard for a delusional individual like yourself to understand, but there are people on here that are:
    • Smarter than you
    • Better with content management than you
    • Know more about Lost than you
    • Not cowards that threaten to delete people's posts if they don't move them

I'm not talking about myself (not saying they would not apply though), but Sean Sheep has some of the best theories on here. They are well-crafted, insightful, and very organized. And it is consistent. That is something hard to find on here and should be appreciated rather than scolded. We are all trying to better this place, but you are just a troll trying to act like you are Jacob or something. You ever threaten anyone that doesn't deserve it again I will delete every single post you have ever made.The Dirty 16:57, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

UQ

You deleted my edit re: why Richard assists Locke in getting Sawyer to kill Locke's father? You said you don't understand what I'm getting at. I understood that the section for unanswered questions was exactly that. If I had an answer that I was getting at then it wouldn't be a question. I think it is an extremely valid question that I've not seen addressed since our seeing episode 6. Now that there is confusion about MIB vs. Jacob and who may or may not be manipulating events to their own advantage, the whole question of who Richard is working for or loyal to (if anyone) is very relevant to ultimately understanding what or who is behind what is happening. We have been led to assume in the past that Richard was loyal to Jacob. If so, and one would assume (I understand nothing can be assumed for sure...)that Richard was acting on Jacob's behalf when he went behind Ben and gave Locke the file on Sawyer. Richard apparently knew that Locke couldn't kill his father (a loophole that Ben knew about? explains why Ben set up an impossible task for Locke because Ben didn't want Locke to succeed and therefore take over leadership). This logic would lead us to believe that Richard wanted Locke to usurp Ben's power. The question is why? Was Richard acting on Jacob's orders? If so, wouldn't Jacob have known that once the Other's gave leadership role to Locke then Locke/Flocke would ultimately find a way to kill Jacob? Or did Jacob not realize what he was doing and was therefore no "all knowing" as he appeared? Or did Jacob want Richard to set in motion his plan to be killed, and has that been Jacob's plan all along? I could go on with questions around this and stronly believe it is worthy of discussion.--Destinedjourney 16:24, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

In editing the section above, I noticed this, and looked at the material:
Why did Richard help Locke find a "loophole" to kill his father by giving Locke the file on Sawyer? 
This ultimately led to the chain of events which set up "Flocke's" gaining access to Jacob and having Ben kill Jacob. 
Was Jacob manipulating events via Richard or not?
I think this is a really interesting question, and one which actually deserves airing. I personally think (see my theory called 'Jacob's Master Plan') that Jacob has been running things all along, and this is another example of this. One of two things is the case: either Jacob told Richard to do it, or the MIB was pulling Richard's strings. Clearly he wasn't as we have now seen. therefore it must have been Jacob, but the question is why? The answer can only be, in order to orchestrate his own death. What on earth is going on here, then? This is a very important unanswered question & should be reinstated.--Sean Sheep 17:03, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
    • okay, so would a better question have been "Who is Richard loyal to and working for?" I appreciate the feedback. Perhaps this is a better question for Jacob's pages and would be asked "Is Jacob orchestrating (good word Sean) his own death?" It is all so interrelated, which is what makes Lost great, that it's difficult to tease out or isolate where something fits.--Destinedjourney 18:12, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Template:NewEpTheories

While I agree that many theories that show up on episode pages should ultimately be transferred elsewhere (possibly directly to the trash heap), putting that in the template makes it sound like policy which, as far as I can tell, it isn't.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:13, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram reply I have read the new template (which is common to all theory pages). However, I continue to think it is unclear exactly what qualifies for an 'episode theory' page and what doesn't. Until that can be clarified you should NOT move things from Episode theory pages to other theory pages. Otherwise it's just your opinion , and you are just one editor. I am another. I disagree with you so I therefore have the same authority as you and can in principle move it back. The fact that I have stopped re-editing the pages you edited should not be taken as an indication that I agree with your actions. --Sean Sheep 19:29, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Theory pages

I have had a quick read, but I must admit I don't really bother with theory pages, especially right after an episode has aired. I do think the template you made is needed though, it looks good.--Baker1000 23:48, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

help please

Hello again. Thanks for the link to help create an archive. The archive is created. I have not, however, figured out how to transfer the contents of previous installments from my talk page. Also, I am confused about your advice that Sybil might continue deducing/predicting (and hopefully be joined by like-minded others) on the user blog. When I went to user blogs, it said in big red letters not to discuss spoilers. Since I am only deducing/guessing/intuiting/inferring what will be from what has been, I hold that Sibyl is not discussing spoilers at all; such things only become spoilers in retrospect. However, in the interest of being a good citizen, of fulfilling all righteousness, so to speak, I am willing for Sibyl to be led to a quiet, clearly marked corner where she may continue to hold forth for benefit of those who wish to consult her. I would not be unhappy if a Sysop moved the contents in question to my archive page. Thanks again for your help. --Lana hibner 02:55, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Woopsie! You responded wonderfully quickly, but not before Juliet was successful: apparently I can simply delete my work. I did. However, I copied and pasted full text into a Word document and will transfer to Sibyl's Archave. Thanks for a triple! --Lana hibner 03:49, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

STOP acting so impulsively, and listen to what people are saying

I am trying to improve matters here, but you seem to be incapable of listenting to an argument, and actually discussing matters before taking action. This Wiki is a collaboration, not your show (or mine). I propose stuff. It's not just up to you to make decisions. Other people need to be allowed to see the proposals before they are removed. If everyone acted like you the whole thing would be a complete shambles. You removed my proposals for a new template from the page where I posted it, and said thast you incorporated them into the theory template. The whole point was that we needed a SEPARATE template for the episode theory pages. By doing what you did, you removed the important material , and did not give other people an opportunity to see it. --Sean Sheep 13:23, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that non-canon banner...

...on the Enhanced episodes page.  Robert K S   tell me  03:26, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Signature on the Flash-Sideways Timeline/Theories Page

We have had words before. I signed it because I wanted people to respond. That page is an utter shambles and I am going to fix it today - radically. The result may be unrecognisable. The signature was so that anyone who thought they were the main editor on the page could contact me and tell me to buzz off. Please read stuff before removing material. If you are not sure, contact the author first.--Sean Sheep 07:13, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

and come on, the addition that User:The Dirty made to your template was certainly not spam. I for one found it hilarious!--Sean Sheep 15:25, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
  • LOL I had a feeling this kid was the one that changed my stuff. Why dont YOU ask before you alter people's stuff CGMV? You expect everyone else to not edit your stuff but you run around deleting stuff you dont like and altering people's posts.

What is this Nazi's problem Sean? "You have 5 minutes to move this or im going to delete it." Stop being such a tool kid, Lostpedia is NOT YOURS, and you DO NOT have final say in what stays and what doesn't, and what needs to be moved. This is a democracy, not a dictatorship, and I vote that Sean's placement of this theory is perfectly acceptable. It may not be how YOU want it, and there may be other appropriate places, but there is nothing wrong with his placement. You are an arrogant prick and you think you know everything about Lost and how the theories should be arranged, but you dont. I know this might be hard for a delusional individual like yourself to understand, but there are people on here that are:

    • Smarter than you
    • Better with content management than you
    • Know more about Lost than you
    • Not cowards that threaten to delete people's posts if they don't move them

I'm not talking about myself (not saying they would not apply though), but Sean Sheep has some of the best theories on here. They are well-crafted, insightful, and very organized. And they are consistent. That is something hard to find on here and should be appreciated rather than scolded. We are all trying to better this place, but you are just a troll trying to act like you are Jacob or something. You ever threaten anyone that doesn't deserve it again I will delete every single post you have ever made.The Dirty 17:00, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Portal pics

Thanks for uploading portal pics for Hiperion and Oceanic for my portal. They look great. --Orhan94 17:49, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

RE: Sysop rights

Well Robert K S says that if there has been nominated that he will bring my name to the Admin forum. So it's just waiting and let's hope so...--Station7 14:28, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

new spoiler policy

Taking into account your testimony that "analysis of the title" is not allowed in reference to the upcoming episode (in this case Dr. Linus), I think it's time that we need a revision to the spoiler policy. Because such a clause is irredeemably ridiculous: Lostpedia itself has released the title, so it cannot be a spoiler for people on Lostpedia to speculate about what said title means. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rtozier (talkcontribs) .

Rtozier 23:41, March 8, 2010 (UTC)CMGV123: The only reason I attempted to delete the above post was because I had belatedly noticed that you asked for spoiler policy-related comments to be placed in a specific section, and anticipated a negative reaction to the post from you.

Portal pics for the cast

Thanks for the portal pics Cgmv. I really appreciate it. --Orhan94 11:55, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

FlashMP3 whitelist

Do you know how to add urls to the whitelist? --BalkOfFame 21:57, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Main character non-appearances

Yes. The page was getting above the limit for parser function calls or whatever, so it displayed just quotation marks without links towards the bottom of the page. According to its page it was expensive. --Golden Monkey 22:31, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Protection

I just extended the protection of an existing page that should've already been protected. Whatever else you might wish to apply to why I did that, is up to you. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  12:13, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Mesage on my User Page

Since you seem to know exactly what has happened, would you mind sharing it we me, because, as usual, no one seems to tell me anything. You might also explain to me, how is it you know I am on protection, and I don't.--Sean Sheep 08:09, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Portal pics

Can I ask a favour of you? Could you help me update all the portals that don't have frames on LP (such as Portal:Analysis and Portal:Literary techniques) by uploading portal pics for the needed topics? Also could you make the needed portal pics for Portal:Events and Portal:Cast? I saw that you cropped and uploaded portal pics in past and I would really appreciate your help. --Orhan94 22:03, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

  • They're great. Thank you very much. Another thing, sorry if I'm asking too much, but could you resize the ones that don't fit the frame the best (on the events portal)? When you can that is, because it is not really important to do it right now as the current pictures are fine though I think that the portal would look even better with images that fit the AA frames better. Thanks again for the ones you uploaded I really appreciate your help. --Orhan94 21:01, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Wow, I'm flattered you chose me as a potential bureaucrat, though I doubt I'll actually be even an Admin :/. Interesting choices I might add, some really good and deserving users that I also consider deserving of the Admin status. Also, I'm planning to start reworking Portal Analysis next as I think it needs to be expanded cuz Lostpedia's analysis articles are more than the 8 listed there. --Orhan94 21:31, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Re:Merge

Sure. I'll leave a note on the top of the page saying that "recurring" characters are the ones with 5 appearances and more, per the recurring characters portal. --Orhan94 20:05, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

reverted edit

Hi! I am new to lostpedia and i am not familiar with all this technical stuff... You have reverted my edit and i don't understand what that means or what are the differences in my article

Would you care to explain what the changes are?

Thank you for your time in advance Otare 11:28, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Deleting my image?

Why'd you flag Followrick.png for deletion? I uploaded it as a contender for the main image for "Follow the Leader", as you already know. It's not meant to be viewed at full size -- and even so, it's not that bad looking. Sure I'm not a genius with image quality, but nobody cares. It doesn't have to end up being the main image, but that in no way means it should be deleted. Why would it need to be? There's nothing wrong with it -- but apparently there is something wrong with you. (Kdc2 20:20, May 2, 2010 (UTC))

FS characters

Could you crop pictures for the FS characters portal for Dogen's son and Kim Kondracki?--Orhan94 18:06, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.