User talk: Czygan84


How can The Incident, Part 1 be counted as an Ilana centric and Ab Aeterno is not? Furthermore, didn't add Dave as a Libby centric, just as a Libby flashback episode. 01lander 04:39, March 26, 2010 (UTC)


Well can you help me then I already once asked people for help with my sig but I have no idea how to make one so I tried to make one and where I made it someone posted that the page was up for deletion :S So can you please help me? --{{SUBST:Nosubst|Signatures/NK-Metal}} 06:10, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Episode references

I see you posted some episode references users have deleted. I've proposed we include these sort of references under the heading of allusions. If you have an opinion either way, weigh in on the ideas page. --- Balk Of Fametalk 10:38, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

No worries

Seriously, it's all good. We all get into arguments sometimes. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   02:52, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

My Apologies

I only counted the time MIB appeared as Christian in "White Rabbit" because he confirmed it in "The Last Recruit". But you counted the times he appeared as Christian from "White Rabbit" onward. Now this wasn't confirmed, only the appearance in "White Rabbit" was. But you seem sure that MIB was Christian in all those appearances Christian made so I'll leave it alone. Didn't mean to upset you. Peace. --Mr. Straume 02:56, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Alright well until he is proven wrong, you are right. mistake. Thanks for acknowledging my response.--Mr. Straume 03:12, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Not Cool Dude!!

Actually my message said absolutely nothing about the databse being down, NOTHING. BTW, you've made me pretty mad with your comment of bothering the SyspOps with petty things, not cool dude!!!!!!!!--Hurley's Hummer 01:49, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

  • Dude, all I was trying to say to you was the message I got said nothing about the dbase being down thats all and yes it's back up now thank you. BTW I'm not petty and sorry for bothering you brotha...Nameste--Hurley's Hummer 01:58, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
    • Alright dude I get the point!!!!! Now who's being petty??--Hurley's Hummer 02:03, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Amends, already water under the bridge. BTW I appreciate all the work you guys do in keeping spoilers off this site and all the work you guys do keeping the site going. Like I said water under the bridge dude. Namaste--Hurley's Hummer 02:08, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Re: what are you doing?

I realize you told me not to message you back in a particularly asshole-ish way, but sorry, I'm doing it anyway. I have tried to find discussion on this and have also tried to start my own discussion, and to no avail. So if you cold kindly point me in the direction of this discussion, I would much appreciate it. No need to act all high and mighty this time, a simple link will do just fine. Thanks! Gefred7112 21:48, May 8, 2010 (UTC)


Hey Thanks for acting quickly with the subzero spoiler problem, I hope you won't be able to follow through on his threat. Thanks again,--Annied 21:33, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Jack picture

I understand you guys want to keep the original Lighthouse picture for "Lighthouse" (for whatever reason). But I have the right, as much as you do, to decide that a crappy picture, that is dirty, where Jack closes his eyes, is not the best choice for his picture on his main page. So why, instead of just having two different pictures, it HAS to be the same ? NONE of the other episodes have a "main page" picture for the other Losties. Is it just a force struggle ? --Atarada 12:02, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Answered there :

No, to be honnest, I just didn't think pictures were such a big deal. Sorry if I broke the rules. THAT won't happen again. As for edit war, neither. (All my edits had different purposes, it wasn't just reverting. And if it was it's because I changed the pictures etc..) Once again, that really wasn't my purpose and I really am sorry about it. But about "being rude", don't even count on that. Instead of telling me "do not change anything without discussing it", I'm being accused of lying or thinking that you're stupid, that I am stupid etc... If you expect me to shut up while a guy is stating things about me that I absolutely don't agree with and think it's nonsense, that's just not gonna happen. Ever. You want to ban me, feel free to signal me. As I said, I'll defend my case. --Atarada 00:34, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Frank's "bs age" came from using common sense and logic. He is clearly somewhere around his 50's, which would make him born in the 1950's. Kind of like I believe Rose's page lists her age as "50's". --Jmoore0905 05:59, May 14, 2010 (UTC)


I just was blocked on Fringepedia as a sock puppet of you. I'm not (obviously), but I also have no intention of editing there again, so it's fine. I'm nonetheless interested in learning about your run-in with this individual. WCityMike 16:08, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Eko

Hey. Sorry about that. I realized my mistake when I was at school today. I watched yesterday the recap episode and I remember seeing his death scene. And for some reason I thought it occurred during one of the "memory" scenes in the actual finale. But obviously it didn't. --SethFlight815 20:18, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

  • Hey. I noticed that you uploaded a picture of Kate's name crossed out on the wall. I was just wondering where you found that, because I definitely don't remember seeing it on-screen. Thanks. --SethFlight815 02:35, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks!

AFterlife sections

Czygan84, maybe I'm missing the long discussion where it's been decided that we merge and delete the FST pages (a portal that I agree needs to be renamed), but I'm under the impression that this discussion hasn't taken place, and thus it is very premature to go ahead and merge all of the FST page info on to the OT info. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   01:24, May 26, 2010 (UTC)


No need to be snippy. I added some of my changes back but removed anything that could be considered an assumption or presumption. Better?--Jmoore0905 02:49, June 17, 2010 (UTC)


I wasn't leaving a comment on behalf of someone. I was referring to the fact that the guy was agreeing and put the source of that opinion, I never claimed to represent him. If writing about people's opinions is against policy, then a lot of content concerning the cast and crew's opinions about Lost need to be taken down immediately. Avindratalkcontribs email  13:41, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  20:09, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Character appearances

  • Hi, please don't reverse my edits, it was discussed and if you feel like changing it back then you should first discuss this instead of just changing it back because you don't like it. --NK-Metaltalkcontributions 15:42, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • I have no idea how to fix sigs I didn't make it. And I brought up valid points just read the discussion.--NK-Metaltalkcontributions 22:43, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • How do I fix it then?--NK-Metaltalkcontributions 08:38, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Sun and Man in Black appearances

You have reverted my edits to Sun and Man in Black appearances by saying that the character appearances page is wrong. If it is can you please let me know in what way it is wrong so we can fix it or otherwise change it back. We need to keep the site consistant. Rachel P 02:38, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Sure ill tell u, my info (which hasnt been tampered by countless morons, not talking about you) says mib appeared in 8, 1, 4, 5, 8, 16=42; Sun 24, 16, 14, 10, 12, 12= 88 so i was wrong about her. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  20:00, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. Which is the missing season 3 episode for MiB? I changed Sun back - alas we all make mistakes, mine was Mib. :o) Rachel P 09:23, July 16, 2010 (UTC)


I wasn't the one who started making changes, that was User:Julietfan2626, back when there was no opposition. The issue started when Julietfan2626 thought it was a good idea to only list the stars who actually appeared in an episode. This led to argument (which took place on a blogspace) during which they decided to change their vote to a no. The issue has been discussed further with the user in question and they seems to have changed their mind again on the question (well... they are making changes, implying they agree) Taking this in consideration, the vote now stands at 7 vs 3, this includes your vote. The consensus might not be as obvious as it was the day before yesterday, but the modifications were started back when the userbase was in 100% agreement over the issue. All I did was make it consistant. The changes were already present on half the episodes. There's always the possibility of undoing the changes, especially with the rollback feature it could be done easily. --LeoChris 16:33, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Starring? Reply

Look on the Lostpedia:Ideas page, you will see the agreement people have come to. Julietfan2626 Talk Blogs


After seeing your opposition to renaming the Man in Black character page, can you please rename the Samuel page? Back to the way it was before? Thanks.--Dharmafolk 20:16, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • It has been re-renamed. --Dharmafolk 20:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)


Thanks dude i think together we proved our points! :)

Character categories

I don't see the purpose of the new character categories. Character nav boxes already list every article relevant to them. Assigning all the articles a category seems redundant and clutters the page. We also end up with minor absurdities like putting Sawyer into his own category. According to his page, Sawyer is now a season 2 character, a father, a murderer and a James Ford. --- Balk Of Fametalk 01:25, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Not clutter the page, excuse me - I meant clutter the category section of the page. I was thinking about pages with many categories, specifically character pages.
In general, we use categories way too much. I hardly ever see the point in categories - why, for instance, do we put Sawyer down as one of Boone and Shannon's flashback characters? He is one, but if someone wants to look up Boone and Shannon's flashback characters for some reason, wouldn't they do so from Boone or Shannon's page? Would they really, upon reaching the end of Sawyer's page, think, "Ah! Now I want to look at some OTHER of Boone and Shannon's flashback characters!"
I see the point of categorizing articles for editors (articles needing discussion, articles under construction) but beyond that, I see categories as useful only where 1) it really makes sense to view all the entries together, and 2) we don't already list those entries elsewhere.
I could be just biased since I hardly ever personally feel the need to search for articles via category. If people skip over nav boxes and go straight to categories, then you're right. But I really do have trouble picturing that in this case. Take Hurley and his CD player. We're imagining that someone reads the page, someone who'd be interested in reading more about Hurley. But they don't click on the link to Hurley. And they skip right over the giant box at the bottom of the page with Hurley's picture, listing dozens of articles about Hurley, arranged logically. Instead, they scroll further down, click on the tiny "Hugo Reyes" category so they can view all those article listings in alphabetical order?
If they do that, then the character categories are useful. And either way, they aren't really harming anything.
Well, except for on a semantic level... just as Sawyer is not a James Ford, Sawyer's pacemaker is not a James Ford. It is an item, which is why we assigned it the category "items". Similarly, the Hy-bird is an animal, not a Hugo Reyes. We break this convention with a few categories ("freighter", "DHARMA"), but I'd argue that we're using those categories wrongly too. --- Balk Of Fametalk 02:31, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

My last complaint wasn't about there being too many or too few categories. It was about accuracy, which is the most important thing - or avoiding inaccuracy anyway. The pacemaker is an example of a James Ford is false. The pacemaker is an example of an item of James Ford's is true - not terribly useful, but it's true.

You're right about the nav-boxes being collapsed - I forgot about that. But they only collapse when more than one nav-box appears on the same page. So in these articles for items, like the CD player or Kate's mugshot, the nav-box appears in full. --- Balk Of Fametalk 02:53, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

We could, simply, not collapse nav boxes.
Nah, that'd create other problems. But we could also take the info from a character's nav-box and paste it directly into their article. I've tried it out now on Sawyer's page. --- Balk Of Fametalk 03:16, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Glade you saw things my way. Finally someone talked sense into you. LONG LIVE MAIN CHARACTERS ROSE AND BERNARD!!!!!

Uh, sorry to butt in but no one "saw it your way". They were upgraded to main cast status for the final episode, as were many minor characters who appeared. They were not considered main characters because of the long argued debate about them having their own dedicated flashback episode.--Baker1000 (talk) 00:05, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
What are you talking about???? This conversation is 3 years old? -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  14:31, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, someone posted the above claim unsigned a few days ago, the one which I replied to. I'm guessing you two had a bit of coming to blows over whether or not Rose and Bernard counted as main characters. Check the edit history of this page.--Baker1000 (talk) 20:38, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.