Welcome to Lostpedia!

Hey there, Mister vijay. 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!  Roobydo  talk  contribs  23:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, I didn't realize there was more to your statement than your most recent edit.-- Roobydo  talk  contribs  23:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


Hello. If it's not too much trouble, could you please use tabs (start a line with ":"), bullet points ("*") and numbered lists ("#") to format longer posts. Particularly when you're going to insert comments into the middle of a discussion. Your long post on the Jacob's enemy page is quite difficult to read, particularly when you start adding posts in the middle. Thanks. :)  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  00:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I see what you're saying much better now. I still don't agree with your duplicate body theory (I think Occam's Razor actually points to the "able to take the form of..." theory, but that's a discussion for the theory pages), but I get your points. The only thing I take issue with is saying that there isn't an obvious relation between Fake-Locke and Jacob's enemy, so that's the only point I have left to argue. At any rate, thanks for clearing up the formatting. :)  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  01:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I am willing to admit that I watched the episode with a friend of mine and when we went out for a smoke just after I said something along the lines of "So that character in the beginning of the episode has now taken Locke's form and has succeeded in finding a loophole to kill Jacob?". So in some manner of speaking, it is obvious, it didn't slip past me in other words. I am pointing out is that it's not "obvious" in another manner of speaking. When you look at the show as a whole it's not obvious but when you look at that episode alone it is. Mister vijay 01:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Signing Theories

Hi Mister vijay. Please don't sign your theories with the tildes, and please don't have direct discussions on the theory pages. By all means, use evidence to rebuke a theory, but discussion should be on the talk page for the theory page. Only talk pages need be signed. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  10:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed section from Talk:Jacob's nemesis

You said: "The point of the thread which you obviously missed was to challenge the sasertions made in the artile..." I looked carefully for where it said that, but I didn't see anything that said such a thing. Restore the portions you need to, but I don't want to see a big long theory discussion except on Talk:Jacob's nemesis/Theories.  Robert K S   tell me  01:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. And, to repeat, such was not clear to me from the text of the section I deleted. It was a mess of unsigned paragraphs interspersed with argument. Nowhere did it say, "Here are the statements made in the article which I believe are theories and are being improperly included in the article. Let's discuss removing them."  Robert K S   tell me  03:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I do want to direct your attention to the opening line of the thread "Please place section entitled "As John Locke" under theory based on the policy guidelines." Also, this "standard" by which you're judging which threads to keep and remove is not place on any other thread in Lostpedia.Mister vijay 14:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, welcome aboard! Always great to welcome new editors who care about the encyclopedia.  Robert K S   tell me  04:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of talk page content

Hi. It is against policy to remove talk page content. Regarding your removal of theories and theory talk from Talk:Jacob, the proper thing to do is not to simply delete it, but move it over to the theory talk page (Talk:Jacob/Theories). If a talk page grows too large (in reference to this edit), the policy is to move the content to a talk page archive, like Talk:Jacob/Archive1. If you need help in the future, just contact a sysop, and they will do it. -- Graft   talk   contributions  00:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Sorry about that misunderstanding. I was under the impression that the talk:jacob page can only refer to the article Jacob and based on comments made by thefreebird in the talk page that the material should be removed I thought it would be okay to do so. I will refrain from making major changes in future until it's clearer that it's okay or I will, as you suggest contact a sysop. Thanks.Mister vijay 02:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No problem; I can see how that misunderstanding could happen. Btw, if you notice discussion taking place on theory pages, that's fair game for removal -- in fact it's encouraged. Take care. -- Graft   talk   contributions  03:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.