User talk:Jackieboy87/2009

Talk:Because You Left
Hello, and I apologize for bothering you. I was just wondering if you could input your feelings at the Because You Left talk page in the "edit war nonsense" section. It would be greatly appreciated, thank you, and happy editing. --HELLØ   ŦHERE 22:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

 * And thanks for keeping everything running smoothly at WikiProject Lost (creating articles with press release information, writing plot summaries, adding pictures, etc.). – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  01:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Lost ammendment
Hi Jackie Boy,

I'm a real neophyte in editing the wiki. I just wondered if you could enlarge on your reasoning for a recent edit you made in Lost:

"Robert convinces her to lower her gun but then immediately tries to shoot her, forcing Danielle to kill him instead."

I realise the line is a bit awkwardly phrased, but thought it was probably the most important reveal of the whole episode (That Danielle wasn't crazy when she killed her team). Is it because its too big a reveal that you withdrew it?

As I say, I don't know what balance an episode recap is meant to have. My own thinking is that obviously it shouldn't move into any territory that either uses information from future episodes and it shouldn't try explain various 'theories' about what events may or may not mean. It should just convey the observable facts of the episode in such a manner that a wiki reader might be able to skip watching the episode but remain fully appraised or come to to note some details they may have missed/forgotten.

Regards

Peter Gillespie

PS Am I using this TALK page correctly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.29.115.146 (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I based my edit on this guide to plot summaries on Wikipedia, which says, "Appropriate plot summaries describe the major events depicted in the fictional work, but do not describe individual scenes in detail or paraphrase dialog." Recently, there have several additions to the plot summaries of articles for Lost episodes, and generally over a period of time these spiral out of control until we have a "play-by-play" of the episode, which is unencyclopedic. There are several articles for episodes of Lost and other TV shows that are written like this and currently the goal of the WikiProject Lost is to keep the articles for newer episodes in better condition. This is so that we can eventually turn them into featured articles, like most of the articles on season four episodes. This guideline is also helpful. Also, if you wish to comment on edits made to a particular artice, the place most suited for commments is the talk page for that article, but this is fine, anyways.

Fair enough. I might try have one more go at something less detailed but still noting the import of the scene (as I feel it does come under the heading 'major event') If you still feel it doesn't fit then I'll defer to your judgement. I'll read those links some more too. Thanks

Regards

Peter Gillespie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.29.115.146 (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

THIS PLACE IS DEATH
I don't know if you realize it, but you are the one in violation of the edit warring standards on the site. My last several edits to THIS PLACE IS DEATH regarding the error in continuity is within the scope of the article, and if you guys insist, I am now using the show's offical episode recaps. If you revert again, then maybe we should send this up as an edit war to get resolution. You do realize you are the one in the wrong, right? Whippletheduck (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not report the truth, it only reports what others have reported first. And if no one has reported that there is a continuity error, then Wikipedia shouldn't. This is the core policy of Wikipedia. Plese read WP:V and WP:OR. Regardless, of who is right and wrong, you have made 5 reverts in the past day and a half and I am reporting you for edit warring. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 14:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reported our dispute on the NO ORIGInAL RESEARCH noticeboard. I've reported our incident on the following board....[] if you want to go there to continue to chime in on this. Whippletheduck (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine I can do the same to you as you are just as guilty in this issue, although I think the board I sent will probably be more then sufficient. I'm glad to see that you are just as impassionate about the show LOST as I am though, hopefully this can be worked out Whippletheduck (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Too complicated?
How is adding one paragraph "too complicated". The information I added was all directly pivotal to most of the major plot arcs that are on-going. How can a summary of a LOST episode be anything but complicated. I know it has to be within reason, but if anyone was attempting to use this a resource to understand the plot or characters as developed in this episode would end up confused within the context of the entire series storyline. -Alex.rosenheim (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually said "too detailed". Wikipedia's guidelines for writing about fiction state that the plot summary for an episode of a television show should be around 300-500 words. Your version was 700 words. In the past, plot summaries have gotten out of control and they become difficult to clean up when attempting to promote the articles to good or featured status. Please read the guidelines on writing about fiction and plot summaries. Thank you. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 18:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Question Regarding TimeLine Arcs vs Seasonal Breakdown of character's activiites
Despite our previous problems, I am willing to make an outreach of peace here, and since both of us seem to have a similar love and passion for the show LOST, I was wondering if you could chime in on Farraday's talk page, and also, as a more wikipedia wide question, which I can summarize here....Timeline by actual timeline, or Seasonal Time Line

This may need to be discussed on a larger basis. In Sawyers Character biography, we have his character's history/arc done on a Season by Season basis. For Faraday, we seem to be doing it on a "TimeLine Arc", where we try to put everything in context of how it happened, when it happened in a linear way starting with our earliest chronological date (which is 1974 after Locke's final move of the Island strands Farraday's group at) and would chronologically end with the Island being moved.

As a result, things that were done in the 1970's, should remain in the 1970's/Prior to the Island part; and going from there. Granted, Faraday is the one that has said that you can't change the past and what ever happened...happened, which I know is frustrating as hell at times, but still. Is there a reason/mandate on how to do timelines? Whippletheduck (talk) 05:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletheduck (talk • contribs)

Do you think that we should do a tally of characters on LOST that have a Season-By-Season arc as compared to a chronological timeline arc? For example, Ben Linus I don't see how the totallity of what he is and has done can be accurately done by a Season-By-Season chart as compared to his current "Arc of Time" line. There is a part of me that wants to see what Farraday will say in upcoming episodes, hoping that he may shed some light on this, because if he does not, I feel that as confusing and hard as it may be, that in the highest tradition of LOST, that we go on the "You Can't Change Time...Whatever Happened, happens, and whatever we do we already did" that seems to dictate things. My two cents, you seem to be a lot higher up the chain on how to do this. Whippletheduck (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not an actual "comment/discussion" but was just wondering....do you think that perhaps while the "Whatever Happened, Happened" mantra is part of what Daniel's experiments while at Oxford has shown him that time can't be changed off-Island....but do you think that maybe on the Island, things can be changed, albeit the universe will still try to 'sort it all out' as Eloise Hawking said to Desmond that one time? I was brainstorming today and was wondering....what if Annie was SUPPOSED to have been taken by the Other's and not saved by Sawyer and his group? What if Ethan was SUPPOSED to have been raised amongst the Other's and not by the Dharma Initiative? And what if because they are time travelers and such, what if Sayid has changed the future by shooting Ben? It gives me a headache to wonder about it, but that is what I love about the show LOST anyway. Just wondering your opinion on all this. Whippletheduck (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My opinion right now is that while the mostly everything can be course corrected, it is a little different on the island because of its special properties. I think when Ben's arm was shown to heal in Namaste, it was foreshadowing his recovery from the gunshot wound (even it though it happens chronologically earlier) because it was meant to remind us that Ben is still one of the people who can be healed by the island and has been since he was a boy. Maybe if he does recover from the gunshot this will make Richard and the Others see him as even more special and will further convince Richard to recruit Ben. Thus it all becomes cyclical- Ben becomes the leader of the Others because he recovered from Sayid shooting him, which ultimately leads him to leaving the island and making Sayid return to the island, only for Sayid to shoot him. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 16:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting....I'm also considering the possibility that the reason, I thought back in Season 3, when Sayid was captured by the Other's along with Kate and Locke while trying to rescue Jack, that Sayid was a dead man for the way he tortured Ben when Ben was doing the "I'm Henry Gale" routine. Maybe Ben did nothing because he already KNEW that Sayid was going to have to one day shoot him. It would also explain some of Ben's fixations on Kate, Jack, Sawyer, and even Hurley, whom were all on that original list that Michael was supposed to bring back in exchange for Walt. Again, your contribs are great, and I'm glad we put our first incident behind us....yeah, this season's cliff hanger should be something. Whippletheduck (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Characters on Lost
"Several editors have had to revert you." No, they haven't had to, they chose to because they didn't happen to agree with my edit. Threaten me all you want. If my account is blocked, I will create another. The edits I made were to correct a problem in the article. I made the edits in good faith, with no intention of engaging in an "edit war." I provided an explanation for each edit, but in spite of my explanations, my edits were reversed. When asked to provide sourcing, I did so. My edit was reversed again. I will not allow the error in this article to go uncorrected. I am happy to discuss what to do about this problem on the discussion page, provided my edit is not reversed again until a consensus is reached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrsightes (talk • contribs) 03:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Lost
That's, what, thirty minutes before the episode ends? I can't compete with that! (yeah, I know, Canada gets it early) Incidentally, I was happy to see Alan Dale, Sonya Walger, and Tania Raymond again. Hopefully we'll get some answers for once. Sceptre (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a gift really 718smiley.png. Anyways, I'm guessing that everything is leading to a Widmore-centric episode at some point because it seems like they're teasing us with bits and pieces of his life and a flashback episode would really tie everything together. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 11:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How many episodes have we got left now? Five? The last two cover the incident, so I think the other three will alternate between the Dharmies and Ajiries. Might get another Ben or a Widmore flashback, though I think it's more likely to be season six. Sceptre (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispute Resolving
Hey even though we have had our problems over the past, I think we have gotten past that, and was wondering if you could chime in on the MYTHOLOGY OF LOST and a few other pages, where myself and user Penguin and I have been going at it. He has resolved to using every little detail that I am putting in and changing it enough to claim it as his own, IMHO, to make up for edits I am making before him. For example, in the LA FLEUR episode, when Goodspeed tells them to notify the ARROW, set condition red, and to "ready the ordinance". As a military veteran, that implies that a weapon system of some kind is kept there, but Penguin wants it called "weapons" when that implies small arms level weapons; wheras I believe Ordinance implies something substantially bigger, perhaps some sort of chemical weapon delivery system (rockets or artillery shells, for example). We do know there was some sort of "ordinance" but he is making EVERY little detail, be it that, or prior to last weeks episode, I wanted to put "At some point, Ethan would end up a member of the Other's under conditions that have yet to be revealed". I did that because A) Ethan does end up a member of the Others, B) we don't know how, C) I was considering the possiblity that perhaps Ethan was SUPPOSED to have been born and raised amongst the Others when they tried to grab Annie, that Sawyer and his crew were NOT supposed to have saved her. He made holy hell over it, and as it was, they confirmed last week that by 1988, Ethan was a member of the Other's anyway.  Sorry to bother you on these petty trivial details, but he is being a real arse about it.  Whippletheduck (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Amy. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  05:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Jb87, (or, what do you like to be called?), thanks for your input on the Mythology talk page. I hope that while you were reading through the comments and saw my "even if JB does agree with you" post, you weren't offended.  I apologize if you were, it was not intended as an insult.  Once again, I'm sorry.  --HELLØ    ŦHERE 02:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolving request, act II- Regarding MYTHOLOGY OF LOST PREGNANCY section
Hi Jacky. Since you have been a fair and impartial arbiter in the past, I was wondering if you could go to the MYTHOLOGY OF LOST section and see the current skirmish between myself and THE ROGUE PENGUIN. Basically, the new dispute is that the show 100% shows that ONLY the women of the Other's are the only ones that suffer the "pregnancy curse" thing. More details there, if you could chime in it would be greatly appreciated. Whippletheduck (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Briefly looking over the edits, I feel that you are right in your observation that only the Others have been shown to be affected by the problem, but I also agree with the Penguin's notion that just because we haven't seen it affect any other women does not mean it wouldn't. Maybe, if we could find a quote from the producers on the issue (probably in a podcast), we could cite that as definitive. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 12:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

American Idol
sorry mate I thought i was adding the comment!!! I got mixed up and btw... How did you know your comment had been deleted? Frazzler9 (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw on my watchlist that you undid a revision on the talk page, which struck me as unusual. It wasn't my comment, but nonetheless you shouldn't remove people's comments from a talk page. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 23:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

A Message
P.S. Why don't you give me a barnstar. Just add it here. Please. I'm desperate.

P.P.S. Sorry for using this as an opportunity to beg. Sorry.

Whatever Happened, really did happen???
Well I take it by now you have seen THE INCIDENT. So do we now confirm that Farraday's "whatever happened, happened" original theory? or do we go on his "variable" theory that he came to before his death. Right now, while it seems like everything that happened, really did happen and there was never really a choice in the matter because of Eloise Hawking's "the universe always sorts it out", but we could start revisiong articles immediately to that seeming hypothesis. But I am concerned that if we do that, we will only to find out that when season 6 starts, that things may have completely changed and Farraday's "Variables' theory could still be correct and they may be entering a entirely new....

Getting a headache thinking about it, that's why I love this show. Whippletheduck (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Season 5 summary for Juliet gone??
Hey why did you drop the season 5 of Juliet away? Whippletheduck (talk) 06:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware of that. I had done some contributions to her, so I was suprised to see that most of her season 5 activities were gone. Whippletheduck (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Why?--72.240.212.138 (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

D.C. Meetup, Saturday, June 6, 2009
The 7th DC Meetup dinner will be held this Saturday, June 6th, starting at 5 p.m. The event will be at Bertucci's, near George Washington University and the Foggy Bottom metro station. It will follow the Apps for Democracy open source event at GWU. For details or to RSVP if you haven't already, see Meetup/DC 7. (You have received this announcement because your user page indicates that you live in Maryland, Virginia, or DC.) Delivered by The  Helpful  Bot   at 19:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC) to report errors, please leave a note here.

Lost: Season 3
Hello! Sry for my English! I have tried to correct a false info in the article which you have reverted lately. According to this source (take a closer look at section "Two Pods of Season 3 Shows"), ABC wanted to air some of the episodes in the fall, so the season have been split into two blocks. The article says: "In response to fan complaints about scheduling in the previous seasons, the episodes originally aired in two blocks without reruns." Please correct this statement with proper English. - Xbspiro (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I get what you want the article to say. The article already says that ABC decided to show the season in two blocks and your addition seemed to say the same thing it already says, or at least that's what I thought. I'm still a little confused about what you're trying to do, sorry. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 22:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the fans complained about reruns, so ABC decided to run season 3 without them. Splitting the season into two blocks was not the fans' desire. The article consists this: "In response to fan complaints about scheduling in the previous seasons, the episodes originally aired in two blocks without reruns." I have tried to separate what fans wanted and what was ABC's own decision by splitting this senctence into two ones. - Xbspiro (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I also reverted this because the part about the two blocks is merely clarification (it would be misleading to say that it aired without reruns when there was a twelve-week break between episodes six and seven) and is not supposed to be backed up by the citation. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  02:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously, I misunderstand a few things due to language barrier. First, I redid the edit and attached a proper source to it after your revert as the summary said <>. I thought that you require a source. Now I can't decide whether you mean "this statement has to be backed up" or "it is a simplification" by "is for clarification". Later, Jackie reverted this edit due to bad grammar, so I asked him to help.


 * As far as I understand, the sentence (of which I have modified) is about to say that at the given time ABC aired a new episode and not a rerun of an earlier one. If the two sentence form would be misleading, how it is possible that the one senctence form is not? - Xbspiro (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "In response to fan complaints about scheduling in the previous seasons, the episodes originally aired in two blocks without reruns" - means that fans complained about scheduling, therefore ABC aired the series in two blocks and without reruns. Am I right? - Xbspiro (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reworded it slightly, let me know what you think. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 16:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine. Thank you! - Xbspiro (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Should Oldham's 'place' be considered a Dharma Station?
Hey how are you doing? Penguin and I have been talking about the merits of whether the "station"...well not really a 'station' but in any case, should Oldham's station that was shown in HE'S OUR YOU be considered a Dharma Station? It certainly was known amongst the DI that Oldham existed. And the protocols that were in place implied that the station was used enough for there to be protocols on it's use. Basically it would be a "Station: ?- Oldham's Point" and from there a paragraph at the most about this unusual place. Let me know what you think. Whippletheduck (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  03:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 06:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Dead is Dead

 * Please comment in Talk:Dead Is Dead Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Volunteer opportunity in Bethesda, Thursday, July 16
The Wikimedia Foundation will be conducting an all-day Academy at the National Institutes of Health, in Bethesda, Maryland, on Thursday, July 16. The team that will be teaching at the Academy, a mix of paid staff and volunteers, is looking for four more volunteers to be teaching assistants, providing one-to-one assistance in workshops whenever a workshop participant has a problem following the instructional directions. (We currently have two editors signed up as teaching assistants, and are looking for a total of six.)

The NIH editing workshops are only for two hours, but volunteers are asked to meet the Wikimedia Foundation team at the hotel in Bethesda at about 7:15 a.m. (time to be finalized shortly) and to stay for the entire day, which ends at 4:30 p.m. Lunch will be provided. (The full schedule can be found here.)

The team is not necessarily looking for expert editors (though they are welcome), just people who can help novices who might get stuck when trying to do some basic things. If you've been an editor for at least 3 months, and have done at least 500 edits, you probably qualify.

If you're interested, please send John Broughton an email. If you might be interested, but would like further information, please post a note on his user talk page, so that he can respond there, and others can see what was asked.

(You have received this posting because your user page indicates that you live in Maryland or DC. --EdwardsBot (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

DI documentary add
Sorry. thought that was for all other direct tie-ins. placed in DI article. Hope that acceptible. thank B.s.n.  (R.N.)   14:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed it for several reasons. First off, it hasn't finished yet and we don't know if it will show anything really significant. It hasn't been confirmed as being canonical and very few third party publications have talked about it yet. That's why I said it wasn't notable enough for the main article for the show. Yes, it is acceptable in the DI article, and probably the season 6 article, when created, but I just don't feel that it's enough for the main article right now. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 15:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Lost 6 Casting.
I hope this doesn't put too much of a spoiler for you, but I thought I'd ask your opinion. Would this be a reliable source to add to the season 6 test page? I know for at least season 5 we had what characters were being casted. I figured I'd just ask seeing as you're one of the major contributors to the overall LOST project. --HELLØ   ŦHERE 21:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that information is okay. Anyway, we should probably get a move on with creating the actual article. I think it's pretty close already to how the season 5 page started last year. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 15:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

D.C. Meetup, Saturday, September 26
The 8th DC Meetup dinner will be held this Saturday, September 26, starting at 6 p.m. The event will be at Burma Restaurant (740 6th St, NW near the Gallery Place-Chinatown Metro station). For details or to RSVP if you haven't already, see Meetup/DC 8. (You have received this announcement because your user page indicates that you live in Maryland, Virginia, or DC.) --EdwardsBot (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of X-ray machines


The article X-ray machines has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This redirect violates WP:NAMES due to plural form, and there is already an equivalent redirect with the singular form X-ray machine

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chetvorno TALK 04:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

LostTemplate
Thanks for your welcome! I reverted the edit because I couldn't find a source for the first three episodes also... shouldn't we remove those too? Thanks! --170.66.1.231 (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The first three titles (four episodes) have been confirmed by Entertainment Weekly here. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 14:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Grand Finale (American Idol 8)
An editor has nominated Grand Finale (American Idol 8), an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)