Hi, welcome to Lostpedia! Thanks for your edit to the Shannon Rutherford page.

Please familiarize yourself with the Spoiler Policy. Spoilers are NOT permitted on the wiki, including community blogs. Any spoilers on the wiki regarding Season 6 will result in an instant and permanent ban. If you wish to read or discuss spoilers please visit our Spoiler Discussion Forum. (Please be aware that this message is automated, and does not mean we believe you are posting spoiler material)

When you post messages to talk pages, please remember to sign your remarks by typing four tildes (~~~~) or by using the Button sig button on the edit toolbar.

If you need help, please check Lostpedia:Help or reach out to a Sysop. Thanks! -- Lostpedia-Welcome (Talk) 00:42, February 9, 2010

Test: --    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   07:43, April 1, 2010 (UTC)


Nice work on theory enforcement/cleanup. I appreciate it and I'll guarantee you that others do, as well.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 04:53, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure - I'm an Editor by nature - difficult sometimes - lot of thought gone into some discussions, some I have elevated to theories - but better that we have a clean a sheet as possible going into the season. Charles Kane 05:00, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

I want to say thank you to you as well for trying to wrangle all of this into an orderly work. I am probably guilty of doing something to exacerbate the disorderliness and for that I am very sorry. I get very confused on sites like this where hundreds of people, with various ideas about organization and argumentation, are all contributing in their own fashion. While I truly appreciate Lostpedia as a place where I can go to learn how others interpret Lost, I am also baffled by how monumental a task organizing all of these contributions is.--Lauraswartz 22:23, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

@Lauraswartz There would be no task at all if people followed the simple instructions about what to post where. In a word (or two) Theories are developed ideas with a "proof" found within Lost. Development and disputation about those ideas happen on the Theory:Talk page as well as anything else theory related. The theory is not owned and can be improved upon and more proof added. The talk pages are signed. Simple really. Good luck! --Charles Kane 23:48, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to trim The Last Recruit/Theories, but I need to back off for a while. Care to take a stab?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:22, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

It's sort of next on my list! Glad someone has done some of it! I've been averting my eyes - I hope it isn't a complete shocker! Should get to it within 12 hours.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   00:49, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Editing What Kate Does/Theories

You removed a huge section from the section "Ethan & Crossed timelines", and in doing so left a comment from another editor which I had shown to be incorrect. I agree that the entire article had descended into a discussion, and the exchange should have been done on the discussion page, but this does not seem to happen with other theory articles. If you are going to edit, either remove everything which appears to be 'discussion', or check what has been written, and verify the facts before editing. As it stands, the statement from the original author appears to invalidate the theory; however, the statement is wrong.

Additionally, in editing , you lost a huge section of the article and its accompanying discussion. Please take care. The normal protocol in removing sections like this is to remove them intact to the discussion page; not remove them altogether.--Sean Sheep 11:57, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Your comments on my talk page were appreciated. I know my posts are always lengthy, but that is because I like to back up what I say with evidence or reasoned argument. I am trying to put together a complete theory of Lost: its life, the universe and everything, and you will find elements of it are sacttered around the wiki (they are usually linked to other sections). I will need a new home for some of the bits deleted, as they constitute important factual elements in the theory. --Sean Sheep 10:37, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Shot-by-shot descriptions in episode summaries

You're right, we're not writing a novel. But we are also not writing a description of what's seen on screen. We are writing a summary of the events of the episode. It's not necessary to include a shot-by-shot description of the show, but rather the events that actually take place within it. These "flashbacks", although important, are not part of the actual summary because they have no bearing on the events. All they do is re-establish a past motif of Jacob touching all the named candidates. But all that aside, if you could find a way to work it into the actual text of the summary, there would be no problem. What you did was add bold-faced paranthetical sentence fragments, which do not belong in any sort of prose (which doesn't imply "novel"... I'm not too sure where you got that from) into the middle of the summary which makes it difficult to parse visually. I agree that the information belongs in the article, but the proper place for it is somewhere in the trivia section and not the actual episode summary.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  06:02, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Edits to The Lighthouse/Theories Page

Just what exactly did you mean by the comment that I should not have put the timeline dates in a Theory about timelines?--Sean Sheep 15:37, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Your timeline discussion is, as usual very interesting and informative. My suggestion was that this material was discursive and was better placed elsewhere as it results in a hugely overpacked theory page lacking in settled theories. I did not edit or remove that material as it was un-editable and best for the author to deal with. I only guessed it might be your material because of its quality. Nevertheless the Theory page was clearly out of hand, way overwritten, containing argument and counter-argument (which I suspect was authored by the same person - maybe you!) and clearly not within the theory guidelines. Charles Kane 15:53, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Yep, the theory was mine. However, if you read the discussion page, I had removed several edits from people (who had objected to this), because their edits were not relevant to the 'scar' evidence. Basically they were arguing about things happening in 1977 then affecting things in 1954. I wrote & rewote the theory to try to explain without arguing underneath. In the end, as you can see I got a bit frustrated, cos they just seemed to be agreeing with my conclusions, but still objecting that I had removed their 'theory'.
I wanted proper counter arguments about dates on the forms, dates of the operation, because that was relevant in establishing when Jack had his appendix out. All the other stuff about Faraday blowing up Jughead in 1954, is actually nothing to do with the episode.--Sean Sheep 15:58, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

QED - it was argumentation not pared down theory. Great stuff but when on a theory page simply causes everyone confusion, frustration and further argumentation. I wrote a lot of the Episode write up tonight and probably got a bit possessive and carried away myself. Need to remember to put things in perspective sometimes, it's a TV show, this Wiki is not mine, we are a community!! Charles Kane 16:05, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Your Comments on the Flash-sideways theories page

I spent a long time cleaning that page up.Your comments about my additions to the page were unnecessary and incorrect. There are several authors on this page who have contributed well-considered, well argued theories about several aspects of the flash-sideways timeline. You may not like my style, but that does not provide you with a reason for attempting to rubbish it in a public forum. The FS timeline is a complex issue, and can't be explained with a wave of a hand. If any of these theories is correct, it will need to explain a lot of things.

You suggest that a theory can be stated in a few lines. Probably. However, the justification and evidence for the theory cannot. The policy on theory posting says that theories shoulf be justified. Your comments potentially invited people to post theories like "I think the flash-sideways timeline is a computer simulation", to which people respond "If that is true, then everything is". I removed all of this sort of chat to the discussion page, where it belongs.

If you have issues with stuff that I post, talk to me about it. I do not hijack pages[1]; I write and structure what I write to be as clear as I can be when exploring complex issues. In my experience, it is always the oversimplification of complex ideas that leads to confusion, rather than complexification of the simple ones. In any case, as Oscar Wilde once wrote: the truth is rarely pure, and never simple. --Sean Sheep 20:16, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

  1. I do not actually understand what you mean by the term: this is what I understand by page hijacking if you mean something else, then can you please explain your terminology

new reply

  • Thank you for your comments on my User Page, and just to show there are no hard feelings have a dove of peace. I have posted a reply here, in the hope that I can explain to you what I am doing, and why I am doing it:
  • The Flash-sideways timeline (to my mind) is not just one of the craziest things that has happened in this show: it is the craziest thing that has happened in ANY show, and so far, what is happening, how it is happening, and not least of all, why it is happening is probably one of the greatest mysteries that the show has yet presented. I watched the producers say that up until season 6, no theories about lost could possibly be correct, because the viewers were missing important information; however, from about episode 3 onwards, it would be possible for an astute viewer to piece together a credible theory as to what the hell is going on. I have taken them at their word, and I (and I think other like-minded people) have been attempting to do just that. Our theories are not about "Who is coming to the island?", because with those questions you can put up innumerable suggestions all of which are credible, but virtually none of them can be refuted, because we don't have enough knowledge. With the FS timeline however, there must be some rules; there is evidence, and there is underlying science, which the producers will know about (even if the average viewer does not). My theories , and those of others on the page are long winded and discursive precisely because we don't know what the hell is going on, but we are trying to work it out. Wen I post a theory, I expect it to be pulled to bits ; I expect it to be changed and I expect to have to do complete rewrites from time to time, like I have done with the one on the lighthouse. If you notice, the theory now concludes the exact opposite of what it did previously. Yes; I sometimes write my own 'objections' to the theory. That's because I already know and understand that argument, and in many respects I have discounted it. Yes, I structure the sections with different headings which do not conform to the norm. That is because I am trying to make dense material more readable by breaking it up. I cannot use 'Wiki' headings because that would imply there are separate theories. Your suggested restructuring above (for example) of one of my theories assumes these are independent ideas. In fact, there is only ONE theory- that of the multiverse. CC, WHH are not theories, they are statements made by characters in the show. What you assume to be separate (and possibly different) sections of the theory, are actually there to demonstrate that this theory is so overarching and so mind-blowing, that it can explain all of these, including the ones which appear, on the surface, to contradict each other.

This is a long reply, because I am passionate about what I am doing, and I am optimistic enough to believe that there are other like-minded souls who will read each others' stuff and provide intelligent comment. The casual, frivolous or happenstance reader will probably skip these lengthy sections, and probably won't bother reading it, either becuse it's too long, too complex, too boring or about stuff they are not interested in anyway. They probably want to get to the important stuff about who is coming to the island, or whether Kate is actually going to shoot Jack, or add to one of the interminable "yes it is, no it isn't" debates about whether the Man in Black appeared as Christian Shephard. I think there is room on this wiki for both, ad I for one would not have it any other way. If you don't like it, get Lost. (sorry about that, couldn't resist!  :) --Sean Sheep 07:25, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Lighthouse (episode)/Theories page

Oh, it's got dreadful hasn't it? Do we really have to suffer this week after week? I notice that you have started to get irritated as well. Jack's taste in music???. Whatever next. "I saw Hugo wearing a yellow socks. That indicates that he is now a coward in this timeline, or that he has a custard fetish..." I think I'll retire to bedlam.--Sean Sheep 15:53, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

I'm too frightened to go to bed, not because I may awake in a new timeline (I'd be up for that) but because someone might think they saw something ....--Charles Kane 16:13, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Just deleted it (Jack/Pixies/unidentified song) again. I think I'm probably doing this wrong. Gonna get into the shite now.--Charles Kane 16:31, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

    • I notice no one has spotted my spoof addition to the page. I thought it would have been deleted immediately, but looking at the other entries, it seems no more outlandish than any of the others.--Sean Sheep 16:38, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
      • I read all the changes (tho gmail does pile them up as conversations so I may have missed it), everything I saw was deeply convincing, erudite and unchallengable!! (you'll have to quote it otherwise I'll just go and pull the lot!) --Charles Kane 16:58, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
        • [this one] I was feeling very silly last night.--Sean Sheep 17:12, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Sheesh I saw it! I figured we're all a bit lacking in humour so it deserved it's place on the page. When is the last time anyone wrote a theory 'bout Hurley! That guy is HUGE! --Charles Kane 23:43, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Editing the Lighthouse Theories Page I am now giving up and going to bed. You can take over if you want. I have tried to do some restructuring, but I keep finding similar sections all over the page. I am not sure the headings are right. I think we need a whole thing on the Lighthouse and the things in it, broken down into smaller sections.

I will have annoyed loads of people becuse I moved the whole lot of stuff about 'who is on what side' to the discussion page. I just can't see that there is a theory here at this stage (or at least one worth calling a theory).

Cheers--Sean Sheep 00:05, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

It's weekend here - go to go and shop and stuff. I'll have a look at it in a few hours but I doubt I could do a good job. --Charles Kane 01:05, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Manilla folder

Thx, but that wasn't me. The credit should go to User:Elcherub2 --LOST-Hunter61 11:35, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Lostpedia!

Hey there, Charles Kane. When you post messages to talk pages, please remember to sign your remarks by typing four tildes (~~~~) or by using the Button sig button on the edit toolbar. Thanks and happy editing!  Robert K S   tell me  04:24, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot. Hardest thing to do remember to push that little button. Enjoying myself too much here! --Charles Kane 04:38, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

I usually just habitually type the tildes.  Robert K S   tell me  04:48, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Lighthouse Theories

It's beginning to look respectable. You seem to be able to create clarity at the text level, whereas I seem to concentrate on creating overarching structures from the anarchy.I Think this works well. BTW, how's Xanadu coming along?--Sean Sheep 10:53, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Either you OR I is going barmy. I posted a reply on the talk page, and signed it. Yes, it's a rewitten theory, but only in your request that the author rewrite it. It's in the right placce to have a signature.--Sean Sheep 11:00, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Explain to me why a piece of evidence from a non-canon source which says pop <=216 for a subset of the population is support for a theory which says total pop<=360. As far as I am concerned, the whole thing was nonsense from start to finish--Sean Sheep 13:48, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

  • Of course it's nonsense
  • I simply assumed it to be canon, where does it come from? I confess, I nether know nor have seen everything!--Charles Kane 13:58, March 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry. I checked, it is canon, it comes from that damned Blu-Ray version of the Season 5 DVD.... grr! Anyway it's still NOT evidence for 360 population, is it? It is evidence that if there is a maximum population allowed, it's greater than 218. --Sean Sheep 14:09, March 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • OK (is Blu-Ray version of the Season 5 DVD canon?!) Whatever. From a political pov - I agree it is no evidence of 360 or 363 or whatever, but it is so transparent that it won't mislead many and in the hope the author accepts this version of his fantasy and so doesn't plonk the whole lot back up I'll leave it as is.
    • side note I just read "Connecting the dots: The Lighthouse, The Numbers, and the Valenzetti Equation". I presume it is yours. Thank you - excellent analysis and beautifully explained. (don't know why I didn't get an email about the changed page) --Charles Kane 14:27, March 8, 2010 (UTC)
      • If this is NOT the explanation, it damned well ought to be...--Sean Sheep 14:29, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Deleting UAQs

Personally, I think Sawyer's, Jin's, and Richard's whereabout do not rate a UAQ, but we are having trouble with User talk:JZBux89 never explazining his deletes. It would help if the rest of us do explain. Thanks.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:58, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

  • Sorry - an oversight - also partially a mistake - I went to remove people who we now know the whereabouts of but obviously got it wrong. Too much editing for one day. Going to look at my pillow right now. --Charles Kane 16:14, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Images uploading?

I don't know where you're talk about, but I wasn't the guy who said to you how to upload images isn't it?--Station7 06:30, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Editing Dr. Linus/Theories

Hi Charles, I have just removed two entire sections to the discussion page. I know you had a go at the authors earlier in the week, but they don't seem to have improved. Please read my comments. I'm sure if you think I'm wrong you will undo my edits, but I have a feeling you will agree with me--Sean Sheep 11:38, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

I read it all, I've been too nice. I've been tinkering around on that page all week (over 30 edits) but I don't think a single author took up a single challenge - until today when someone confirmed Cuse's interview about Kate being crossed off in the cave. I doubt you'll get any complaints, certainly not from me.

Editing Recon/Theories

It was a shame you had to remove my theories as to why the bodies were in a pile. I was particularly proud of "Widmore brought them on his sub".

I don't know if you'd bothered to trace the history of any of this, but I'd just got so cheesed off with all the flak from trying to edit this page, especially after it was relatively Ok for asbout 24 hours, then got re-cluttered with a whole pile of crap. In a fit of pique, I posted about five theories one after the other, all growing in lunacy, until I reached the one about The Ory & Widmore's sub (Which I posted with the note: "if you can't beat them..."). To my absolute horror, I then found that people were trying to refute them, and provide counter-arguments. At that point I thought "I'll retire to Bedlam", and just gave up the ghost.

You have done a really good job on this page this week. I just hope that Ab Aeterno provides us with some answers, so we can get rid of some of the nonsense that's been building up. Like you I get exasperated with all the people who write stuff like Tawaret is the mother of MiB. I suppose me deleiting it , saying "Tawaret is a lump of rock" was a bit sarcastic, but within Lost, it happens to be true. I just cannot see theat D & C are going to invoke any kind of pre-existing deity, any biblical story or any historical figure (Napoleon, for god's sake, that was a theory in Dr. Linus; that one took the biscuit), to explain what is going on. It just would not make any sense. But how on earth can you convince people of that?

--Sean Sheep 21:43, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

I think I've followed everything. You got some crazy flak there, people get very self righteous without thinking things through or having regard to the guidelines. But that is the nature of it, Stay cool - despite all that your thoughtful material makes the wiki so much better and I'm sure your material has more respect that might be apparent. (Bodies came on the sub indeed!).

May I say that you probably don't need to go to such lengths to defend yourself. You'll be doing it till kingdom come. Refer them to the guidelines! There is an issue with the way this works and I think theories side by side with discussion - much like Word review tracking could be good.

Separately, for things like editing the Ajira dead issue I did it with side by side view in a text editor (Notepad++), I find the "this page was edited while you were working on it" pretty frustrating! --Charles Kane 23:52, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Re: FS Miles

You're correct, the word "still" is leading -- tho' I think you're splitting some hairs on the "speaking to the dead" wording.  :-)

I think it's a valid question about the FS Miles character, tho' you're right -- it wasn't raised by the episode. Maybe a better question for the FS Miles page. Tho' on consideration, I'd submit it's highly likely both versions have the ability. Some folks seem to believe the timelines diverged pre-Jughead - tho' I would argue there is insufficient evidence at present to really support this. In the OT, young Miles was evac'd pre-Jughead and developed the ability. Some folks were pointing out the mention of his father at the museum as evidence in the direction of a pre-Jughead divergence, but it could be that's what Dr. Chang went on to do post-Island as well.

  • "speaking to the dead" - Its just that Miles corrects people every time it comes up - also he doesn't communicate, just gets info - I know you and I know what it means but some visitors may not be as well informed. So it can be good to "split hairs" sometimes. I do think it is a better Q for the Alt-Miles page, coz despite all the timeline theories, it may turn out either never to be an issue or at least not one directly for Det. Straume!
    • I agree that Miles does describe his ability that to others that way -- tho' I'd also raise a couple of counter-examples where Miles also appears to be able to go after info that he wants to know: "Confirmed Dead" in finding the money in the vent - and he appeared to question a dead Alvarez in S5 (workman killed at the Swan and taken to the Orchid by Dr. Chang for unknown reasons) as to what happened.  :-)

Banning of User:Sean Sheep

Hi Charles, I just thought you might be interested in this:

When a user is banned, it says "you can discuss this with an administrator". However, that is the one thing that you cannot do if you are banned. Emails to administrators do not seem to function, or if they do, they are not read, or they are not responded to. In the case of User:Sean Sheep, a serious injustice has been committed, and I am asking you to look into this case and revert the ban.

Before you look at my identity, yes, I am Sean Sheep. Lamb Chop is a sock puppet (an actual sock puppet that is, not a sockpuppet!) I am not a sockpuppet, because according to Wikipedia , a sockpuppet is "an online identity used for purposes of deception" . no deception is involved here. In any case, I have scoured this site, and as far as I can see there is no rule which says that a user cannot have another online identity. I draw this to your attention, because a previous account I created in order to clear my name was also banned by the same Sysop for being a "sockpuppet".

Sean Sheep has built up a good reputation on this site over a period of a couple of months with around two and a half thousand edits, and a lot of work on the episode theory pages. There have been some meticulous and detailed blogs, examining the intricacies of fractured timelines and the teasing out of possible alternative theories. These are not to everyone's cup of tea, but nonetheless they provide clear, well-referenced connections to established scientific paradigms. Sean Sheep has also edited episode theory pages week on week during Season 6, and has been responsible for the removal of several spoilers, and has alerted sysops to the existence of such.

The piece in question for which Sean Sheep received the ban was a speculative piece about a possible Richard-centric episode, and copntained, as is Sean Sheep's usual style a lot of different theories, 20 in all. Some were serious, some off the wall, and some tongue in cheek. Nowhere in the post was there a title episode, and all of the speculations were my own, and I have not read any spoiler sites about any possible forthcoming Richard-centric episode. My guess is that someone has been reading spoiler sites, and in amongst the 20 speculations that I posted, at least one (possibly more) was close to what a spoiler says will be in some forthcoming episode. However, as I have not read any spoilers, that is just me speculating again.

I would ask that you read the deleted blog, and check what I say is accurate. I understand that Sysops have work to do (I am a Sysop on two other wikis); however you do need a sensible mechanism for encouraging sysops to discuss issues with bona fide users who appear to have broken the rules, before banning them in a peremptory manner, and denying them even an opportunity to explain their actions. In addition, if there is a rule about 'sockpuppetry', then this needs to be clear to everyone. I know this is about Lost, a wonderful place with mysterious rules. However, the concept of mysterious and unexplained rules does not need to bleed through into the wiki.

I look for ward to receiving your response (Sean Sheep) --Lamb Chop 07:39, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

You can imagine how totally irritated I am, especially when there are innumerable blogs out there openly discussing the title and contents etc of specific episodes.--Lamb Chop 07:46, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

I'm utterly outraged - can you suggest where I should go to talk with "staff" because I'm not familiar with this. --Charles Kane 07:59, March 23, 2010 (UTC) Also, there is no indication on your user page that you are banned?! --Charles Kane 08:03, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

  • I have posted on the talk pages of two different Sysops, in the hope that some common sense might prevail. I have a distinct feeling I know what (or possibly who) is behind this, but I cannot say. Anyway, please do not do anything which jeopardised the good work you were doing. I'd hate fro you to be tarred with the same sort of brush that I have been. I suppose I sent you this, just in case you wondered why I had stopped editing.--Lamb Chop 08:07, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd rather leave. Much of my pleasure at being here is the value of your theories, let them tar away I have done nothing wrong and so what anyway, this is not my life but a small corner of enjoyment. I still need to know your crime! (it's something spoilery but I read most of your stuff (at least that I'm aware of) and I missed it.
  • Sorry I have never used a talk page before so I had to figure some stuff out but I am here just to say I dont think user Sean Sheep should be banned. Just my opinion. I think this user adds alot of great thoughts and ideas to the blogs, and if he messed up we should forgive.Igivesaclaire 09:01, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
    • @Igivesaclaire You should get an email regarding changes on pages you visit, I am very concerned too. and I've left a note with one of the administrators. I'm sure Sean Sheep will see you note of support as well. Lets hope things are resolved quickly.
      • Charles I read what you wrote, and I thank you deeply. You were eloquent and almost glowing in your praise. I blush.--Lamb Chop 13:22, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous ban of Sean Sheep

Charles Kane, I have posted on both Sean Sheep's talk page as well as Jabberwocky's. I will add to Robert K's also. --Destinedjourney 00:47, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I must weigh in on this. Sean Sheep & Charles Kane are primarily 2 of the reasons I come to lostpedia for my LOST updates. Their dedication and time devoted to this site is invaluable. Seeing this ban occur simply infuriates me. Charles Kane - don't give up - your efforts are absolutely recognized. Sean Sheep - glad to see you've found another way back in. A well-deserved kudos is on-hand for you both. --Wendyislost 19:54, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • Thankyou Wendyislost. Seems like there will be silence on the SeanSheep front for quite awhile. Who knows whether he will reappear. Maybe he will find a "loophole". When the real theorists are culled it leaves crappy editors and episode writers like me staring at a pretty empty task. Very frustrating. Thank god lost itself remains such a joy! --Charles Kane 00:10, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

RE: UQ removed/re-added in Ab Aeterno =

  • Hi, I did post a defense of my re-adding questions in the talk page of Ab Aeterno before doing so, right under your own edit.Maokun 04:46, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • and I saw it later - that section is pretty messy. Thanks --Charles Kane 05:07, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Further UAQ Cleanup

your hard work is appreciated

You have been working hard on edits but not seeming to have much fun the last day or two. Look forward to seeing your theories as of late. I am getting tapped out, seems like we are all going over the same old same old....only so many times we can talk about who is good and who is bad. Ready for a new challenge...bring it on! And have fun!--Destinedjourney 23:51, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • I appreciate that. I am very much saddened by what has gone down around here. I am considering whether I can be bothered. I'm not much at creating theories but love a good meaty one. One of the few contributors who provided that has been frozen out in the most arbitrary way. I have spent ages cleaning up the hugest mess on the ab aeterno theories page and not a single one of those theories was at all interesting, well argued, supported by decent evidence or anything. Furthermore it was like people hadn't really even watched the show. So yes I my fun and enthusiasm here is at a low ebb. --Charles Kane 00:03, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Hang in there. The end is near, and we'll have loads to chew on. Don't work too hard.--Destinedjourney 01:22, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • your support and from a few others is quite unexpected. Thanks. On another note I just listened to the Official Lost Podcast. I have never done so before. Wasn't expecting so many spoilers (tho they were pretty minor) but was pleased to hear the very down to earth way that they look at what they have created. Reminds me that we need to accept what we see at face value and not try to make everything a convoluted mystery. So all the Ricardo/Black Smoke/MiB/Isabella/Hurley stuff is just what we saw. none of this Jacob was Isabella, MiB wasn't isabella, Black Rock wasn't Black Rock stuff all of which just gets in the way of the BIG questions. --Charles Kane 01:43, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Charles, I notice going through the posts how well you handle your editing duties. You always give a reason for what you move or delete and do so politely and frequently with humor. It's great to have such a dedicated and thoughtful person like you doing the tedious task of editing so that the rest of us can enjoy Lostpedia. Thanks!--Destinedjourney 14:45, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

@Destinedjourney: Thanks    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   15:07, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

whoosh sounds missing from flashbacks in Ab Aeterno. (ep|6x09)

Hi Charles,

I think you have a very interesting theory, that the "whoosh" sound only appears after the flashbacks of the "airplane people." However, there are other theories about the significance of the sound, and you shouldn't delete accurate production notes just because they do or don't fit in with your particular theory. Also, I've noticed that the "whoosh" has coincided with the flashbacks of other people who were not on the plane, such as Benjamin Linus and Desmond Hume. But, regardless, I think it's much better to let the facts speak for themselves, and let people decide their own interpretations, instead of forcing one interpretation on everyone, by deleting accurate information. Don't you agree? NYCDavid 06:44, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

  • Mostly I agree with you, and I especially appreciate you have come here to talk about it. I just felt that it did not fit with what I am used to seeing in "production notes". On reflection I'm not so sure what is intended for that section! I'll have to look at the episode Style Notes. Either way, we can't talk about every production issue, like camera angles, lighting, music themes, directors styles, etc etc on the episode pages. If we could I would fill it up every week! In this case I think you are stating the obvious. Its not like telling me that Cusick hasn't appeared as Desmond for 8 weeks (or whatever). Why not say, for example, that for the flashbacks/forwards in this episode they used an orchestral crescendo (I think that's right, I haven't checked every transition). Also I agree that not all Flash backs should have the whoosh - tho Ben is so closely aligned with the plane - and was on the second flight that it would be right for him. Desmond - I'm not sure.

I'll leave it tho I think you can improve it! Have fun. Charles Kane 07:01, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Your response was very thoughtful. In fact, I put it under "General Trivia" and someone else moved it to "production notes," which I thought was fair enough. Some of the flashback transitions are completely silent in this episode, incidentally.

I have a personal theory about the flashbacks. I think that the flashbacks, flash forwards, and flash sidewayses, are metaphysically real phenomena, not just narrative devices. I think the same sort of phenomena that caused the Lostees to time-travel was causing the flashbacks. In particular, I found it very noteworthy that Desmond's flashbacks--in which he retained his memory of the present while he was in his flashback, and retained the fresh memory of the flashback while he was in the present--where otherwise the same as all the other flashbacks. I think the reason we hear a "whooshing" sound before and after the flashbacks, and the new creaking sound before and after the flash sidewayses, is because something is actually really happening. It seems to be stress-induced.

I think we didn't hear a whooshing sound before Richards flashback, because it wasn't a proper flashback caused by the island's time-travel phenomenon. Those have already stopped. This was simply a narrative device to fill in Richard's backstory, not a true "flashback" caused by the island, according to my theory.

Mind you, I do not want to assert is that my theory is right and your theory is wrong! I really have no idea of my theory is right or not. It's just one theory, and that's my point! We don't know which theories are right and which theories are silly, so I just want to get the facts out there, and let people decide for themselves. NYCDavid 08:12, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

  • Very interesting. I never thought, and I still do not, that there was any link between the Losties in the OT and in the Flashbacks. That would take a huge metaphysical leap even beyond the ones we are already faced with. But it does raise the perennial Q about theories. People are SOOO sensitive about them. I'm not a great theoriser but I spend a lot of my time on the theory pages (episode) trying to bring some order out of chaos. Ppl are so possessive about their theories!, endless arguments on the theory pages. They are just theories. Most are transparently bad, based on poor evidence, relying on stuff outside the Lostverse, figments of fertile minds, wish fulfillment for favorite characters but just about all of them are interesting, at least for a moment. Ultimately people forget that however much Lost may be based in science, theology, literature - whatever - Cuse and Lindehoff can do what the hell they like! Thus you theory is as good as any other. I love that people are trying to use their brains, their imagination their creativity - that is one of the reasons why Lost is such a joy and a work of genius.

Love your edits in general. And let's hope they keep the Sawyer-with-a-gun main image on "Recon" now. Best, fellow LOST fan. --Jonahwriter 06:09, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

  • I appreciate that muchly. Thanks. I like Sawyer-with-a-gun to but I don't know who put it back! I've actually prepared one which is a screen cap as opposed to a promo shot, but I don't have a HD version of the ep so it's not great res wise
6X08 Recon-gun

Re:Sean Sheep ban

While I only had limited involvement in Sean's ban, I believe that most of the actions of the other sysops were justified. They had good reason to believe that Sean was posting a spoiler-based theory, and we take a "better safe than sorry" stance on spoilers and spoiler-based theories. In response to the multiple accounts, while there was a slight overreaction on our part in his ban extensions, the email option was not disabled for him, so he had no need to register multiple accounts. Also, just because Sean is a user who makes many positive contributions, this does not place him above our policies, so his previous editing efforts play little to no role in determining his ban. However, Sean has been unblocked now, so hopefully he has learnt not to push the line on spoilers, and he resumes his usual positive edits. --Blueeagleislander 06:11, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

  • I appreciate you communication. I am very glad he has been unblocked. Whilst accepting what you say about spoilers I still don't believe he posted a spoiler. Be that as it may the "better safe than sorry" approach seems not to be applied uniformly resulting in a lot of dissatisfaction around the wiki. Although I partially based my appeals on Sean Sheep's "value" to Lostpedia I understand how that might not affect whether or not someone should be banned. Nevertheless it should be a consideration when considering a penalty. The difference between an editor who posts blatant spoiler(s) and contributes little else and someone who upholds the Wikis rules, contributes widely and then commits a borderline breach are plain to see and their penalties should reflect that. Btw were I banned I would not know what "the email option" is, and I doubt that Sean Sheep was aware of it anyway. Sadly (for me at least) Sean Sheep has not resurfaced so the ban may have had its originally intended effect. Charles Kane 08:36, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Charles, It is only when I read your talk page that I had any inkling what was going on. I went into Lostpedia today, still thinking that I was banned, and I happened to notice this on your Talk page. Can I first of all just say what I have been wanting to say to you for about a week. You are a complete stalwart, and you have put yourself out on a limb for me, and I thank you very much. I truly believe without your calm and reasoned messages to sysops that I would still be behind bars. I have found the entire experience completely Kafkaesque.

As you rightly surmised, I posted something which, in retrospect, given the current atmospheres about spoilers, one might have been regarded as unwise. About three days (I think), prior to Ab Aeterno, the byline of my blog read "When, and IF a Richard-centric episode appears (hint)". I followed this with 20 speculations (of which, none, I have to say, turned out to be correct). However, the point of the speculations was not to try to second guess what would be in a Richard-Centric episode, but that if any of these things happened, that fact on its own would blow wide open a whole load of theories about what the island was or is. For example, one of these was that one or more of the losties appeard as a character in Richard's history. I also suggested that Richard might actually have pre-dated Jacob. I was apparently banned because of the work "hint". I argued with several sysops (as you did) along the following lines:

  • That since I didn't post the name of the episode then the sysops were inferring that I was talking about Ab Aeterno. Nothing in LP:SP mentions anything about "possible inference" being included in spoiler content.
  • The fact that Ab Aeterno was "Richard-Centric" was an open secret. ABC had said this 4 days earlier, and on a Sysops page was an undeleted dialogue which confirmed that fact, and which had been posted several days before I made the blog. On the day that I posted my blog, there were at least three other blogs which were openly discussing the matter. Mine by comparison was tame, and very circumspect.
  • The "hint" in the byline was intended as a joke reference to the elephant in the room; the fact that we all knew this, but were not allowed to mention it.
  • Finally, the "Catch 22" argument which should have convinced anyone who really thought about it, that I was no spoiler. The only way that this could have possibly been a spoiler, is if you already knew that Ab Aeterno was Richard-centric. Then you got the hint, then you understood the reference to the elephant in the room. However, in this case you already knew, and it was not a "spoiler" for you. If you read my blog and did not know what the next episode was about, you would simply have taken the hint to think that the writer seems to know that there is one coming up soon. However, this is not really a spoiler, since the producers had already said as much at the beginning of the season, and with only 10 episodes left, it does not take much of a brain to work out that one will be coming "soon".

There are several more issues about the ban, because, as you rightly say, no one explained to me that I was not supposed to write stuff on my user page other than material about the ban. That was never even "hint"ed at. However, other users did appear to know; and appeared to know precise details so much so that they were able to report me to sysops for breaking the terms of my house arrest. Kafka is not dead.

Many Thanks Again . I will try to continue as normal. However, I have a lot of catching up to do.

--Sean Sheep 09:03, March 29, 2010 (UTC) I guessed all that. And I'm smiling. I too will just try to get on with things. Charles Kane 09:10, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how did you find the images without the V logo? Did you just paint them over in photoshop?  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  14:59, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

  • I just edited the images that you (someone) put up. I used another Adobe product Fireworks, but you use the Clone Stamp tool - lots of image editors have one - a good free one is PaintDotNet, but Picasa has a good tool too if I remember rightly. Can be a bit fiddly to do it well and like anything practice helps. I usually also use a brush and maybe a smudge tool too. ABC should be shot for those intrusions. I'm in Australia and Lost has been shunted to a second string digital channel - not many ads so they just have a small & transparent logo. but I usually grab the Canadian version, coz we are a week late here and I can't wait!Charles Kane 15:07, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
    • Well I'm a photoshop junkie myself. In some pictures, though, you can tell something was blurred. I just hope that there will be a re-run next week without the V logo. But honestly, though, does the V logo really matter THAT much?  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  16:20, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • absolutely - it offends me. It is not the work that Paul Edwards made, particularly in this ep where the promo thingy obscures a particular narrative device - let alone the ongoing distraction. It is designed to divert attention from what you chose to watch to something you didn't choose to watch, thus spoiling whatever immersive dramatic qualities the episode has (don't you turn the lights down, turn the volume up, tell everyone not to talk so much while you watch something you love?) AND it's aesthetically ugly as sin.Charles Kane 16:32, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I agree completely, but I meant, does it really matter for our wiki's purpose? I know it does, but the picture still serves its purpose.  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  16:56, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Black Rock / Magnus Hanso

Hi, Please stop adding leading questions in the UQs. Whether Magnus Hanso knew about the Island and/or if the Black Rock was heading there of its own accord is interesting speculation, but these are really theories dressed up as questions. There's nothing in "Ab Aeterno" to suggest or hint at such a connection; it's not raised by the episode. Similar to Flight 815, the science team, and Desmond's wreck, Black Rock could very well have encountered the Island by "accident". All we know is that Jacob had some hand in bringing the Black Rock there.  :-) Cheers -- Spiral77 19:48, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

  • fyi - I did add a note to the effect on the discussion page under "Slavery". Spiral77 19:50, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • Its cool. I didn't add it. Someone asked why it was there. I gave an unnecessarily long speculation as to why it might be there and the editor who asked re-wrote the original question and put it in (all on the discussion page). My memory isn't perfect - if I put it back it was because whoever removed it gave no reason in the summary for its removal. Charles Kane 23:32, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

RE:Site-wide changes

The user has posted his Idea on Lostpedia:Ideas. If this problem persists without consensus, and a sysop is not available, talk to one of the rollback users. They can undo multiple edits at once. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 12:32, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have undone until the start of this season. I won't do previous seasons - too hard! He told me he posted on Ideas at the end of our "discussion.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   12:40, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

6x12 Images

I have no idea, but I already chose the pictures and I'm going to customize them soon.  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  14:15, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

FYI, tagging of images is usually used just for the presence of a character or an item. Tags like "redemption", "plea" and "kill" are not created because, well, they're pretty vague. Otherwise, all your contributions are awesome. :)  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  21:27, April 14, 2010 (UTC)


Seriously, CK, I need your help on the Everybody Loves Hugo talk page regarding all the cultural references. It is ranging from Springsteen, Seinfeld, and now an ancient Chinese folk tale called "The Man Who Was Thrown Down The Well." I mean, it's ridiculous. While these may have been intentional, they have nothing to do with the overarching story or themes of the show. Can you interject, pretty pretty please? :-) —   lion of dharma    talk    email   03:57, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

I have been following the saga - thought you were handling it pretty well. I would have jumped in but I have just been trying to clean up the theory page. Basically if I wasn't polite I could have simply trashed 97% of it! Discussion, discussion, "hey, I liked your Idea, maybe X could be Y or what about Y could be X" etc etc. Instead I have been editing, finding theories in the dross. It's crazy.

I'll jump in, I think we may have to offer a little compromise - can you see your way clear to allow that? If so let me know, if not then I'll just offer my arguments and pull the stuff out.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   06:56, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I actually just discovered something. I discovered that that little navigation box under the Recurring Themes section only contained about 30% of the [Themes Portal]. (I think the Themes Portal needs to be cleaned up — which can only be done by a SysOp, I think — just to delete some themes and add some themes, but that's another topic). Anyway, I edited that navigation box so that it reflects all of the relevant themes. Anyway, seeing the entire Themes Portal gave me an idea on how to add indirect references that are likely intentional and also relevant to Lost's recurrent themes. So if you go and look at the Happily Ever After article, you can see how I moved some of the indirect cultural references, such as Angstrom the bunny, from the Culural References section to the Recurrent Themes section. Am I making sense? Anyway, TV and Music are not part of the Themes Portal. They are only part of the [Culture Portal], and that portal is only for direct references. See, I really think that it there's no need to comment about Springsteen or Seinfeld on the page, particularly when the Seinfeld reference is questionable. They're not direct references, and they have nothing to do with the overall thematic structure of Lost. So boom, problem solved in my eyes. Let me know what you think. Oh, and I think that the Superman reference is a somewhat valid one, only because the word "Bizarro" was truly borne of the comic. But I don't care either way. It's just that some might. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   07:26, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Jeez, never even looked at that portal. Scary. All the more reason to keep the Cultural references nice and clean. Thus a reference to Bizarro, being neither direct or relevant can not get in, but can go into the Superman heading in the portal. Is that the idea? Anyway as it stands the cultural Reference section is all OK at the moments. So I think you can notch up "success", (all success is merely transient however).    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   07:36, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Well no, Superman could not go in that portal because it is a portal for recurring themes. Superman is definitely not a recurrent theme, nor are comic books. Anyway, I just realized that someone created a page for Spanish Johnny, the name of the restaurant that Hurley went to which is supposedly a reference to a Springsteen song. Perfect place to add that bit of triva. Boom, there you go. As for the Seinfeld reference, who the hell cares. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   07:40, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Field of Dreams

"It was widely used in the 60s (I know - I was there!)"

  • [grabs fumigator & pumps] Back! Back to the sixties!!  ;) Thanks for the dialogue on the Kool Aid. Unfortunate other folks have to ratchet things up. Duncan905 19:37, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

It's cool!, No fumigator required! tho I was a bit surprised by the level of intensity over a little phrase. Just from a script writers pov I'd be surprised if Jonestown was the reason for using the words. It's just too extreme for the Claire/MiB situation. Seems to me Claire has bought into MiB's lies and obfuscation but she was not part of a cult (it was just her for 3 years), no one took the kool-aid to die and until MiB went out and killed a whole lot of non-followers he had only Claire as a follower. I enjoyed the Last Recruit a lot after a run of pretty weak episodes and I particularly liked the idea that the infection is based on manipulation of the needy and the unloved and therefore can be overcome. While that may turn out to be wrong it has still been put out there and would be an interesting angle.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   00:47, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

    • I understand, and maybe it's that Sawyer uses the (direct) reference to mean something beyond that, in the context of their situation. Just like him calling Locke "Col. Kurtz", he wasn't literally meaning by extension of Apocolypse Now's story that Locke should be assassinated, but in the context of the situation Sawyer was expressing doubts about his leadership. What do you think? And fwiw I share alot of the same feelings about infection/claiming after this ep as well. Duncan905 01:13, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
    • I just put an unnecessarily long response on the long recruit talk page under "Claire's claim / freewill" where I say more of the same. I must have missed Sawyer calling him Kurtz. I guess the thing is that Sawyer is "the informed con-man". His nicknames are not the stuff of intellectual rigor. But they are appropriate. Maybe it is enough that Kurtz/Locke are bald, that they live comfortably in the jungle.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   01:35, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
      • Oh, the Kurtz remark was back in "Confirmed Dead". So Sawyer's extrapolated meaning at the time was the bald leader who took his faction into the jungle & went mad; i.e. Locke split the survivors and went to hide in the jungle from the Freighter people, and Sawyer's got no problem inferring Locke may be going nuts after admitting he talked to Walt. My view of Sawyer is he *projects* being an informed con-man, but his savvy is often quickly revealed to be padded with ignorance. Case in point, he uses Star Wars' "gone to the dark side" knowing Hurley will respond to that, but is clueless about Anakin's name. "Who the hell's Nicki?" - as he stands over her body. It's almost contradicted by how much reading we see the guy do, you'd think he absorbs so much. But even as he references 'Of Mice & Men' to Ben on Hydra he's baffled by a direct quote moments later. That's our Sawyer. Duncan905 01:54, April 22, 2010 (UTC)


Thanks! I have to say, the episode articles this year have really been top notch, and you've been doing a really great job on them. Keep up the great work. -- Graft   talk   contributions  18:17, April 28, 2010 (UTC)


Charles, I was not aware I deleted anyone's post on the Lostpedia Admin page. I am so very sorry if I did by mistake and will do whatever necessary to correct it. I was voting on the discussion and noticed after I did that for some reason my entry appeared as a continuation of LionofDharma,s, so I went back on to edit and just did a line entry so mine would start on a new line. When I did page preview all looked good so I saved the page. I don't know how I managed to delete anything and am really emabarassed. Have you been able to correct it or what can I do?--Destinedjourney 15:53, May 4, 2010 (UTC)


Did you thought it was a bad episode or just that it could be much better? Well I thought it was a good episode but it could been better I mean they gave Sayid an 10 sec death and Sun and Jin an 10 min death... not fair in my opinion. But about the images, the images where indeed a little bit low in quality (not terrible that's not what I mean but it could've been better). Btw sorry for my Engelish sometimes, it's not my native language :)--Renzoo 12:02, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

  • Oh and btw, I'm just reuploading images. It's not so much work, but you need to find good pictures, put them in the right category and put them in the right place on the page. That's much more work :) You sad thank you to me but instead I should say thank you.--Renzoo 12:36, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • I thought it was poorly done. The quality is way down and I think has been getting worse. It's like they are tired or have lost interest. Sad really - After such a long build uo for Sayid this season it all ended very suddenly - he has been a major character from the very first episode and it was disappointing , though not unexpected. I won't miss Sun or Jin so much because I don't think they have been important for a very long timr - if ever. I liked Sun - good actress.

What is your first language? You communicate very well!    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   12:38, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Re:Strange Block

Do you share a computer with the Cartographer, or anything like that? -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  17:35, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

MiB history

Do you like all or part of the history section proposed on the MiB talk page? The one that was put in later seemed sparse and claimed thing like we are absolutely sure he is the Smoke Monster when we didn't see the actual transformation. Alatari 08:30, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure I understand the question - but we ARE absolutely sure MiB and Smokey are one, we always have been sure, Across the Sea makes what we knew absolutely plain.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   11:04, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

change of dates

I don't believe I was the one who set the dates for the "Over the Sea" episode, but I agree with your reasons for changing them.

  • Sorry - I thought that is what History told me - still not that good at working this stuff out sometimes!    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   01:57, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry I couldn't be more helpful earlier, but I was in the middle of bringing up the episode page for FlashForward. Anyway, I think this date thing is gonna yield a lot of passionate argument until TPTB speak, hopefully sooner rather than later. Cheers. Jim --Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:15, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • It won't matter - we've been in the ball park all along. Is FF good, much of the 1st season was so blurgh. I guess Penny and Charlie are there!    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   02:21, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • FF is greatly improved in "Season 1, part 2." There have been a lot of reveals. Not that it matters. ABC has dumped the series in favor of V. Yech! I dropped a note on SyFy's feedback that they should go after the show, but David Goyer, the showrunner, is bailing. I will soon have nothing to watch on any channel, unless Caprica comes back.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:24, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
    • I've heard good things about Caprica but there is no sign of it in Australia (unless it's on pay - which I don't have) - might have to DL it. I'm not sure how to manage FF then coz I gave up on it and now they are pulling the plug. V is seriously bad. I watched most of the original series way back when - but that wasn't that good either. What are they thinking, Elizabeth Mitchell walks around like a zombie and the rest of the show is ice cold.


I really get no satisfaction out of doing that.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:39, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Hi, why did you removed The plot of Lost explained – The incident, "It worked" and the Long Con from the_end theories page?

Without even discussing it in the theories talk page, or even giving reason to the removal?

(by the way I'm the one who put it there as the user theone3 just won't login...)

I think I left reasons for all my removals, but If I didn't I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be rude. Unfortunately I don't remember coz I have got my sword out and removed a lot. I don't do this for fun. The reason for ALL the removals is that they did not comply with the guideline written at the top of each theory page. The SysOps had to put those guidelines there because editors rarely make an effort to comply. Theory pages are not opportunities for discussion, for rants, for discussion of stuff outside the Lost episodes. They are not a place to experiment with ideas that are not well formed and argued. They serve a particular purpose. A relatively final Theory, succinctly stated and then supported by evidence gleaned directly from within Lost that are relevant to that episode and are not more suitable on other pages - eg a theory about The Incident should go on The Incident Theory page, or on a page you create on Lostpedia - either a blog or a talk page.

That way the Theory pages will be useful to people seeking a guide rather than a rant, they will also be shorter and more usable.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   14:25, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oh and you need to talk to one of the Administrators about your login and signing problem. I'm sure they will help.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   14:27, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

  • Ok, So as I understand now I need to do 2 things: 1. In each 1 of my 23 steps I need to add a proof. 2. move it to the incident theory page. The problem is that if I do that, the Theory will be 5 pages long and not 1 page long like now,while I thought that after I put the theory we can discuss what steps do not comply with the Lost cannon, modify the theory if needed, and throw it away if it's significantly wrong...Ozba 14:37, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • You have a number of options. The best one would be to refine you theory so it is not so long. Be you own editor. After you've done that send me a copy. You can use the email link. Send me a copy if you like, I'll try and refine it a bit if I can.

Then decide where to put it. you might put a really brief version with all the strongest arguments on a theory page and make a link to a blog or you talk page, or sandbox page. The Blog will lock it down - but if it is too long not many will read it. Talk is good but can get unweildy if you get a lot of commenters. Break it up and do several blog pages. But yes, on a theory page you should do your best to provide evidence. If your theory is strong enough you may not need to give evidence of everything. It is a guide, not a rule, but the best arguments/theories will survive even if they do not comply. Refine. Refine.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   14:48, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

  • Ok I'll try to do that in the little spare time I have, and thanks !--Ozba 15:21, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Reversing deletes

You may feel free to reverse mass UAQ deletes by User:Boondocks4ever.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:24, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

The End

So I guess that were the final pictures i've reuploaded. You liked the end?--Renzoo 13:38, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Well done - nice to have good quality up,

No. I was very disappointed. I thought it was a soft fluffy cop-out - I have the feeling they changed their minds about the flash-sideways about half way through the season from a decent science fiction based explanation to a wishy washy quasi faith based finish completely inconsistent with the entire rest of the series! Even the on island adventure lacked excitement and cleverness. I've just re-watched the final 3 episodes of the fourth season - now that was a lesson in how they could do it. quite brilliant.

Oh well!    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   14:11, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

  • To be honest I completely disagree with you, I thought it was brilliant. Lol I've rewatched it directly after the End and i'm now at season 5 again (yes so it was like 5/6 episodes a day lol really wasn't having a life lol)--Renzoo 23:03, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm glad people enjoyed it. It deserved a popular ending. There do seem to be two camps. I'm just sorry man of science got such a bum deal!    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   23:44, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.