The logo is not clear at all. Initially, I thought that the logo resembled more of an altar (like this one). But then I thought it looked more like "DHARMA" written at the bottom (like this one). However, after looking at a higher-def version of the screencap, I can understand where you would see the "altar" at the bottom. It's very hard to tell... -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 01:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is have a vote. That way many users can voice their opinions of what the logo is. Right now I'm probably leaning towards it being the "altar" logo... -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 15:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I am asking for consensus about the logo here. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 00:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


Hi. Why are you asking me about the temple logo? Please write back. Thanks.--DF3 my talk page my edits my identity 22:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I now also think the altar logo is right.I mean this one.--DF3 my talk page my edits my identity 23:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

What you on about?Mikki b 05:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Lostpedia!

Hey there, Roobydo. 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  17:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to set up an autosig, please follow these instructions. It's important that your sig always include the timestamp.  Robert K S   tell me  12:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Cool, looks good.  Robert K S   tell me  13:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Please don't forget to sign...  Robert K S   tell me  05:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Use what?

That image banner? Yeah.  Robert K S   tell me  13:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


I love puns too. Glad I gave you a laugh. Smiley emoticons smile ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 23:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Some Like It Hoth/Theories cleanup

Nice work! I think the thing about Glenn could have gone, too.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


I tried leaving this message earlier, but I just realized it got blocked by a spam filter. No, that doesn't make any sense to me either. Aaaaaanyway, I just wanted to say thanks for the hard work medal. Much appreciated! --Managerpants 10:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Theory edits

My sig is a tribute to my favorite college team North Carolina State University & their late, great basketball coach Jim Valvano. They do look like pretty cool opposites. I thought the same thing when I saw it on User:Managerpants.

Anyways, I'm about 3-4 months new to posting & editing on Lostpedia. I'm catching on quickly, but I still need some things spelled out for me. I am glad to help with cleaning up some of these pages. Cleaning up the theory pages is a little easier for me, but I'm up to the task of some other's as well. When you said on my talk page "Lets go ahead and see if we can tag all the ones we find with cleanup tags so we can divide up the work and come back and clean them," I need some help understanding what you meant. Do you want us to tag the ones we notice that need cleanup & then divide them up? Or did you want us to divide up all the one's that were ALREADY tagged for cleanup so we don't double up each other's efforts? I'm game either way. Sorry to make you spell it out for me. Thanks for your patience.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  18:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I've got it (I think). I'll let you know if I have a question after I do it a couple of times.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  19:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
This all sounds like a great idea. I think the 3 of us should be able to make some good headway. Thanks for coordinating! --Managerpants 19:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I just edited The Lamp Post/Theories, but I can't figure out how to clear the Theory Cleanup category. How do you do this?  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  20:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Got your note about removing cleanup category. Problem is that it is still attached to that page (The Lamp Post/Theories). It isn't located at the bottom of the edit page & I also "clicked the 'x' on the 'Theory Cleanup' category tab at the bottom of the edit page where 'add category' is". It is still an attached category. Not sure what to do. They probably won't all be this tough, but I can't figure this one out.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  01:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, Jim in Georgia did it for me. He said it was on the "editable text" & not on the template so that is why it didn't work. I'm trying to figure out what that means. Thanks-- NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  16:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Got the message about the template you created. Great idea. Since theory page posts are not signed, is there a way to tell who wrote the theory without going through the history page of the theory, edit by edit? That can take a while if I haven't checked it for even a day, & lots of edits were made.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  12:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I just completed editing Daniel Faraday/Theories & I can't figure out how to remove the Theory Cleanup category from it. This has happened on a couple of pages I've edited & I can't figure out how to remove it. It gives you the option to "x" it out right above the 'Summary:' when editing (like I'm doing now), but even when I "x" it out, it stays as an attached category. Also, it's not located at the bottom of the edit, as Category:Theory Cleanup', to remove. What do I do? Sorry for the rookie mistake.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  17:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Theory talk

Hey, when moving theory page discussion, it should go on the theory talk page, not the main article talk page page. Thanks. -- Graft   talk   contributions  22:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've got that. :) -- Graft   talk   contributions  22:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit's on The Variable/Theories

Wow, you just created a firestorm over there. Just wanted to let you know I agree & if you need me to come to your defense, I've got your back. Just let me know.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  14:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ditto for me. --Managerpants 19:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Likewise. And no sweat on the talk deletion. I just didn't want you to wake up the sysops <grin>.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Fanon Alerts

Ok. Thanks. I wasn't sure whether I should put them there or not so I've constantly been putting them on and off during edits, becuase I wasn't ever sure. I'll get those up ASAP. --Crash815 Talk 23:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Desmond, the variable

I see that you've already moved my theory to that page. I thank you for that since I'm new and I'm just knowing how things work here. --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 02:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Periods and commas inside quotation marks

Hi. You said: Periods and commas always go inside quotation marks. I say: I'm 99% sure that is wrong.--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mc peko (talkcontribs) .

Re:Database failure

Hi, that's just a random hiccup of the site. Nothing to worry about. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  11:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Theory page clean-up

Thanks for the positive words. I think one of the challenges we face on the theories pages is that A) The term "theory" makes many people think anything they can imagine belongs on those pages. B) Since it is more a matter of people investing their own creativity, they are much more fervent in their defense of their ideas. I was curious what sort of success you've have in dealing with people who can't take a hint. I don't know how closely you've followed the four-toed statue theory page, but one of the most absurd theories was one about the statue being the Egyptian goddess Taweret, who had the body of a hippo, an alligator tail extending from the back of her neck, and carried two symbols that bear resemblance to ankhs, but are easily distinguishable from ankhs. The reasons the statue can't Taweret were clearly expressed in the theory page's previous form, the most clear of which is the canon evidence that the statue is male. In cleaning up the page I deleted the theories about the statue being Taweret (along with any others about it being a female), but was surprised when last night someone had reposted a long theory about it being Taweret. I undid the revision, cited the reason of canon evidence to the contrary, and posted my reason in the discussion room. My hope is that they'll take the hint this time, but I also imagine that you probably have had to deal with the same thing, and wondered what successes you've had when people continue to repost disproven theories. Is it best just to leave them (and begin unraveling all the work of clean-up), or is there a more specific action that you've found discourages the behavior. £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 16:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Since I messaged you, things have really been degenerating. You may want to check it out before you reply. See Talk:Four-toed statue/Theories/Identity. Thanks for your input. £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 23:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, I wash my hands of that whole mess. £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 21:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Need your opinion.... I'm working on cleaning up LaFleur/Theories, & I'm not sure what to do about the whole Spacetime is one street/more than one street section. Are we to remove debunked theories from each shows Theory website? Or as long as they are written as a theory & have evidence, do we leave them there. Obviously this episode is prior to the confirmation of WHH theory from the episode Whatever Happened, Happened. At the time these were valid theories, but now they are debunked. As long as they follow theory guidelines, should I leave them up? or take them down?  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  17:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism

Thanks for the heads up. It's been taken care of. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  01:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry but I was trying to delete the "Blooper" about the book not being wet using the noinclude tags didn't seem to hide it? Could you please remove the line for me?


Peter G

Pgdownload 23:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Need your opinion

I'm trying not to get in an edit war on Richard Alpert/Theories, but User talk:Wicke038 believes that his theory Richard is of medieval European origin is an vaild one to keep on the page. Personally, I believe that it is purely speculation based on Ilana calling Richard... Richardus, and the fact that the Others can speak latin. I'm open to the fact that I'm wrong, but I wanted to get an objective opinion. Can you check it out here & leave me a message, or, if you feel comforatable you can respond to my post on his talk page. Thanks for your help.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  20:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your info and help. I greatly appreciate it.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  01:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Replacing "unsigned" templates

I'd say it's frowned upon to the extent that it alters the visible timestamp of the message, but there's no policy regarding this. BTW, you forgot to sign your message asking me about this. :-)  Robert K S   tell me  22:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Jacob's Enemy

Actually i've noticed that the comments of the cast members aren't considered canonical here. An interview with Mr.O'Quinn reflects the actor's opinion about events in the final episode. You've said that we can give the links, but i'm not sure about that. Anyway i trust what you've said. Here's the link you've requested:
Paintbox 13:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much.Paintbox 11:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually i'm new here, and don't know everything about the rules. Thanks for enlightening me:-) So, we have to think twice before writing something. By the way, I share your idea that this's not a spoiler information. But there're many people who have spoiling-phobia, so i'm trying to be careful. And although the interviews with actors and actresses aren't canon, these're not the sources to take lightly. I was and am still confident that whom Terry O'Quinn is gonna portray in the final season.Paintbox 13:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


Hi. I made the mini. Thanks for letting me know.--DF3 my talk page my edits my identity 14:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Theory edits

Thanks for the advice. I will try to do better at that. I do appreciate constructive criticism, so keep it coming when you see necessary. I've only been doing this for about 5 months, so I can still use all the constructive help I can get.

While I'm thinking about it, I was thinking about doing some editing of Bram & Ilana's page after seeing The Incident. Specifically, I wanted to get your opinion on whether or not Jacob's meeting with Ilana in that hospital is sufficient evidence that they are working for Jacob, & not the new Dharma, or the Others or anyone else. I think that scene was sufficient, but I wanted to get another person's opinion. What do you think.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  17:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll edit only what I know for sure about Bram & Ilana at this point. It's good to have a some other people's opinions you can seek as I know I am not the authority on LOST. While I see some things one way, you & Jim in Georgia can see differently, as evidenced by his thoughts about who Ilana is working for. Thanks for your help. I've asked for help from a few others & got condecending, better-than-you comments back.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  19:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


I noticed youve been changing the image for the temple and saying its not "cannon" well actually it is. If the picture is the same as the one used on the show just better quality then its cannon. The quality of the picture doesnt matter, what matters is whats in the picture and both pictures show the same image one just has better quality. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  21:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Need your opinion

Whenever you get a chance, could you please take a look at User talk:Dh0501 and tell me your opinion on this? I honestly think this is just a new user getting their pride hurt and not wanting to let something go. I don't even see how this theory could be re-worded to have any merit. To keep you from searching for his theory, it is here. It states that Tom(aka: Mr. Friendly) is Sawyer. I know that just because I disagree, doesn't make it invalid, but come on. Give me your honest opinion. Thanks,  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  19:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries, we all have responsibilities (we'll, I'm not sure eveyrone here does). Believe it or not, I do most of my editing at work, as the job is very slow as of lately. I'm usually non-existant on the weekend, as I have a wife and son at home who are priority #2, behind God. As for posting on that page, that really wasn't what I was looking for. I only wanted to get another opinion to see if I was overzealous in the deletion (as that is not unheard of on my part). Thanks for your input. He has re-posted now with some "evidence", which I say loosely, so I will leave it as is. I have a feeling it will be debunked Season 6, ep.1 when Sawyer and the others end up back in 2007. Have a great weekend!  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  15:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: New Template

Looks good. Funny thing is, in my spare time today I'm working on Jack Shephard/Theories and taking some of them to the theory page. I can use this. Personally, I would remove the <small></small> marking to make it easier to read. Thanks,  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  18:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Undoing My Edit

The least you could've done is to reformat the point I had made in a format that more closely matched your expectations. I'll admit I'm a bit angry at you -- it's a legitimate counterpoint to the listed point of that theory, as Smokey-as-Christian clearly played a part in the discussion of the prophecy of Locke's upcoming death. This makes me want to not play any part in contributing on this website, despite being quite knowledgeable about Lost canon, if the people here are so hostile about possible contributions, when I've clearly seen many elements of Theory pages far less worthwhile than the one I included. Good day, sir. Menefalas 16:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Follow-up: I have re-included my point in a more detailed, less perspective-sounding fashion, that I think sounds very impartial given the context and includes a lot of relevant information. If you once again reverse my edit (as my revised point is no longer "discussive" in diction and style), it will merely display a flagrant disrespect towards absolutely legitimate attempts at contribution, in light of the high number of a number of far less organized and "chatty" edits made to the Theory pages (and not their Talk pages). For the record, I'm far from a newbie with Wiki-editing, though I'm new to editing here (despite being a long-time reader). Menefalas 16:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting of "Event" section in The Incident

Hi. I'm here to talk about your rewrite of the "event" section of The Incident. I may be slightly biased in my opinion, since I helped write that section, but I think the information you deleted was necessary in the article. Before your rewrite, this section was a detailed summary of the Incident, as seen in the S5 Finale. I think that a detailed summary is necessary in the article. We have highly descriptive event summaries in other articles, so why can't we have a detailed description of the Incident? It always annoys me when someone deletes detailed info in an article that can't be found anywhere else on the wiki. Please let me know your opinion on this issue, either on my talk page or on Talk: The Incident. Namaste.--Linus2342 19:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to your opinion, I think a detailed summary is needed in the article. We have segments that describe both the lead-up and event in detail in various other articles, like the "battle" articles (ie., the 1977 Barracks battle and Battle at the helicopter), as well as a detailed summary in Discharge and Mid-air break-up. Do you think that all that info is "redundant", too? The Incident is a very important DHARMA event, and I think we should describe it well enough in the article. Namaste.--Linus2342|talk|contributions 03:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added some thoughts to the discussion. I agree with you for the most part. I don't mind detail, but that was just way to much. I actually just logged back in today after about 2 weeks away. I had a family emergency and haven't even looked at LP for about 2 weeks. I'll be back editing fairly consistant for now.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  17:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Incident Theories

While I believe that statement about the Bible, I guess it was a little subjective. I was trying to prove a point to it's validity. Oh well, I've been avoiding The Incident, Parts 1 & 2/Theories, but it's got to be done sometime. Better now than never. I'd love to split it. I'm sure Managerpants and Jim in Georgia will help us if we ask. You just let me know which sections are mine, and I'll be all over it on Monday. Have a great weekend.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  17:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Somehow, I forgot to put "Incident/Theories" on my watchlist. It is long overdue for cleanup. I'm in for sections 9 through 15. The section numbers in the TOC may change. Some of the sections may need to go away...--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram reply Thanks for organizing it. I agree with Jim in Georgia and we should stay with using the sections names, since the numbers will definately change as we cleanup. Good lunch to everyone. - NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  00:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I just tweaked your organization of the moved theories on Talk:The Incident, Parts 1 & 2/Theories. I don't think there's a need to put a new "Moved from theory page" before each one we move. How about my change, by just putting them under each other with the subcategory heading. That way they are all in the same section, just different headings. If you don't like it, feel free to change it back. It just looks a little more organized that way.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  19:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, I've been using "Jacob's nemesis" with a lower case (n), but I will start using (N)emesis. Also, I've added the comment to the template about making sure to sign any comments posted.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  20:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow! You're quick. I guess it was a busier day than usual for me at work today. Hopefully I'll finish tomorrow. Lowercase (n) it is. Have a great day.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  21:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A year ago, I would have sweated over making some sense out of all the verbiage in the "theories," but I was newer then. So far no one has complained to me about my actions, but we'll see what happens based on the work today. I think most of the stuff comes from people who read a page and just gotta say something. I also think most of them won't be back before January or can't remember having made the comment in the first place. I get especially nervous when people start explaining nuclear physics because they read all about it on Wikipedia! Take care.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Great job to everyone!!! Now that everyone is done, I'm gonna reorganize and try to put some of these 1 comment theories with other's if possible, and maybe create some sub-categories if applicable to put like theories together. - NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  15:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Theory Edits

Was just doing a bit of theory cleanup of things now disproven.. was there a particular edit you disagreed with? --Integrated (User / Talk) 04:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to your comment on my page, you are totally missing the point. I virtually never (think I did once or twice) write theories on this site. My beef is with the practice of trying to "clean-up" the theory pages on episode-specific entries. These users are categorically erasing all theories on the page siting that they need to be moved to the individual character pages, etc. This is just over-editing and unnecessary, and in my opinion, makes the site much less interesting. One of the main reasons I came to this site was for the theories, and it was convenient to find them after a particular episode, espeically after a rewatch. Again, overzealous editors are just making the site crappier. Ardeophyte 22:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


As much as I agree with the idea, like CTS before me said, that's up to wikia, not us. Hopefully some action by them will be taken soon, though. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  15:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: Happy Fourth

Thanks. It was a good life -- twenty-four years.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Please sign & new template

I didn't take the time to look for the template and just copy & pasted it. Thanks for pointing out the template for me. I'll be using that instead next time. Also, your template for explaining removed theories is great. I'll definately be using it in the future. Happy 4th weekend (a little late).  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  13:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


If you get a minute, could you post your thoughts here. I've had it up for a while but haven't got any discussion going. Thanks, and I hope your summers going good. - NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  02:05, September 2, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Of coarse, after 1.5 months of being up for discussion, I update the page and then someone gets upset. Oh well, you can't please everyone. I haven't taken much editing time this summer either. Needed a little break, plus after being laid off at the end of July, I've been trying to find work. I too am looking forward to Fringe, and also seeing what this new FlashForward is all about. - NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  17:32, September 10, 2009 (UTC)

Where are you?

We need pushbrooms and scoop shovels. <grin> --Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:30, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

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