Talk:Lost Experience/Archive 1

This archive page covers approximately the dates between May and October 2006.

Article organization

Not sure how to best organize this information, but I feel that it should probably be broken down by date(maybe week or month, depending on how often new clues are released in the future)/what clue is released. And possibly just general information on the sites. Not sure which makes sense for just storing of encyclopedic data, so for the time being I have it up to some degree in both ways. Which may also work. --Wentwj 20:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Also the widmore page was fanmade, and not part of the ARG. --Wentwj 20:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how encyclopedic a blow-by-blow of the ARG will be. I'd leave that to Lostpedia, they already have a pretty extensive set of pages. I think I link to it would be appropriate tho. You may want to set up a redirect of 'The Lost Experience' to this page. Thatw as my first search term and it didn't find this page. Blade 22:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"The Lost Experience" now re-directs here. Tphi 22:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that acording to my own expereance with the game and this site that some information conflicts such as the fact that some parts of the game show themselves over time acording to a calender and some events take place over time acording to the date you uncovered the easter eggs(IE the date you recieved the internet "cookie" for giving the password) im refearing to Press release - May 5th 2006 before i gave the password everything was fine. EDIT: not a revilation but but i can't get the freaky music to stop when i close all the windows to the site seems to be permanately loged into my cacheJamie-planetx 23:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I reckon that the timeline sections should be converted to prose in the same way that it was done to the phase3 section. I am going to do this to phases 1 and 2 as soon as i can but if someone wants to get started on that then that would be great. It seems to be a better layout as reading a bulleted list is long and tedius and people generaly just want the gist of what happened and all the key details. Squidfish 09:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned here, prose seems like the best idea. If you could help me out with this, that would be much appreciated. -- Wikipedical 00:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.sublymonal.com/

Does anyone know what http://www.sublymonal.com/ is? It seems appropriate to make a article about it, but I have no idea what it is, only that when you try to sign up to the HF's newsletter and get the message from persephone, the time changes to OB:EY, and ig you click it, you get to the above site, which is kinda spooky.

umm maybe not an article, but I did write a little thing about it in this article, please feel free to add whatever you want to it :D --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 01:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

not a seperate article, but this article should be expanded somewhat and information about sublymonal.com added.Coffeeboy 18:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you suggest be put in? All the website does is give you a clue and says obey. We have no idea the signnficance of anything yet. The only reason I included the newspaper ad was because it was a dramatic example at how far ABC is taking this, not because of what the ad might imply.

Medvedenko 21:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday on June 3, 2006 if one went to sublymonal.com, entered the code "tongue" then signed on to a website hosted by xanga.com, one was able to "lymonize" the site, rendering it yellow and green with slogans such as obey flashing across the screen.

I think there should perhaps be a dissection of the "subliminal" advertisements in the ads themselves. For instance, in one of the commercials, in which a man is being drip-fed Sprite, there is the image of a yellow frog flashed on the screen. It's reclining on the man's body or perhaps the table. Dark Load 13:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I'm having trouble logging in. (Corporate firewall...?) I was just on sublymonal.com, entering in random things, and decided to enter "Alice Cooper." Alice facts and trivia started floating in the background and I was able to move the floating info and saw that they sourced Wikipedia. Not sure if it deserves a mention (self referencing, and all), but I found it interesting at any rate... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.218.136.169 (talk • contribs)

It seems to do that with most things: for instance, type "Hild Bede", which is a redirect to College of St Hild and St Bede. See how it loads in the text "#REDIRECT College of St Hild and St Bede". In each case, the text is read by a TTS system. If you enter something that isn't a code, it pulls the Wikipedia article; if it finds nothing, it gives "access:error". — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 11:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

I rewrote the article becuase who ever put the original research tag was right. The article was quickly becoming a step by step guide to the game, analizing the clues, describing things in great detail. Thats great for all the Lost Experience websites or Lostpedia, but not for Wikipedia. The article should summerize the game not analize it. Medvedenko 20:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Medvedenko! This article is vastly improved and now conforms to Wikipedia norms and guidelines. Hope that it can be kept that way. -- PKtm 21:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should not contain every single piece of info on the matter. I don't know if I'm alone in thinking that it would be nice to maybe add a section toward the bottom that gave a few random examples of the type of clues and puzzles that were used in the game. This might get people to understand exactly how complex/simple the game actually is. If not a section, then at least a couple of sentences to get the reader to understand what kind of clues/puzzles are actually involved. ArgentiumOutlaw 23:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the nature of Wikipedia is that it's a slippery slope. People see two things along these lines, and, wanting to contribute and not recognizing the basic tenet that "more is not better", they'll tend to want to add two more, then two more, etc. This kind of detailed fan-oriented material is exactly the purview of sites like Lostpedia, not Wikipedia. -- PKtm 23:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That might be true, but fear of that kind of thing should not prevent us from writing a helpful and informative article. When this thing is over, people won't be doing it nearly as often anyway. ArgentiumOutlaw 17:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's too short, I mean who ever took the info off, you removed it not rewrote it! there should be a bit more information --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 18:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I just removed all the superfluous info. Its only been a week, there isn't a lot to say yet. Medvedenko 21:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fine by me lol --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 02:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As I've been known to write, "more is not better." Far better that the article be shorter and still be encyclopedic, and adhere to the tenets of Wikipedia, than to have fan-related trivia in it. -- PKtm 02:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Valenzetti

• I oppose a merge. I think Valenzetti should merge with Bad Twin Coffeeboy 20:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That is more logical, but what is there to merge? Valenzetti Equation isn't even notable in the Lost Experience, as far as I'm aware it has only been mentioned once with no indication of significance. Bad Twin is about the novel Bad Twin, not the fictional history of a fictional author. Medvedenko 20:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't really care where it's merged-- Bad Twin was my original inclination, too; however, as Bad Twin (the novel and article) doesn't actually discuss "Valenzetti", it seemed like it would be a bit confusing to combine the two there. As there's not an article about the fictitious Gary Troup (nor, in my opinion, should there be yet), there's not an alternate merge point. Since the Valenzetti stub says that it is a background for the Lost Experience, it seemed to make more sense to include it here.—Leflyman^Talk 20:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, however Bad Twin should include a section on Gary Troup and a note about Valenzetti also being written by him. Bad Twin is part of the Lost Experience too from what I'm lead to believe. Coffeeboy 20:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Bad Twin is obviously marketed to Lost fans, and thus the connection to the "Lost Experience" is part of that hybrid marketing effort. If you feel strongly that Valenzetti should be there, go for it. :)—Leflyman^Talk 21:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of writing about fictional history, but if thats what you think is best. I'm still confused as why this article wasn't deleted, Valenzetti is a minor detail, a real minor detail. At this point, and my personal opinion always will be, an insignificant detail. Valenzetti as a redirect is useless because no one will search for it. Medvedenko 21:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I also oppose this merge. Instead, why don't we try branching out Gary Troup and merging both Bad Twin and Valenzetti Equation in there? Seems to make the most sense because both of the books are directly related to Troup, and then we can have Troup link back to the Lost Experience, and vice versa. ArgentiumOutlaw 02:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

update, I created a new Gary Troup (Lost) article, and there is a suggestion for a merge of Bad Twin and Valenzetti, in it's talk page. So feel free to voice your opinions there as well. ArgentiumOutlaw 02:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I have merged Valenzetti with Gary Troup (Lost) for now. --Takeel 15:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Valenzetti is also mentioned on the hatch map in Lockdown. Ausir 23:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Points of note.

Just a few points that came to my mind when reading this for the god knows how many-eth time. Is it really a game? I don't think it is, games have a purpose, usually to win. There is no prize or purpose, thus it's more a collection of Easter egg (virtual) than anything else.

Further, is anyone else irked by the fact that Hanso, the man himself, the CEO of the Hanso Foundation, has only one publicity photo and it's a sub-second rate paparazzi shot? Further, all the publicity shots on the site seem slightly horrific as if taken late at night at undisclosed locations by pre-pubescent teens with webcams. Jachin 05:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• • It's not so much a game as a passtime, and a mildly disappointing one at that, but it is free and beggars can't be choosers. The use of Alvar Hanso's alleged photo reminds me of the use of J.R. "Bob" Dobbs's face in the SubGenius Church. Some sources indicate it was originally lifted from an obscure advertisement in a phone book or newspaper some forty or fifty years ago. The actual source is lost, and any other photographs of the elusive leader of the church have been controversial at best. Same holds true for Alvar Hanso. As for the production quality of The Lost Experience, it does seem to be pasted together by a kindegarten class. Either this is due to a lack of finances on the part of ABC or Touchstone. It is even plausible that there's contention over who is actually responsible for paying for this. Since it's an experimental commercial attempt at viral marketing, it's hard to say how much money's actually being invested in it. It's also plausible they're purposefully making it look like it was cheaply produced, in order to attract the same people who are attracted by other viral marketing campaigns that are not financed by large production companies. This is a fine line they cross. Viral marketing is by design unpredictable and orchestrated efforts that aren't grass roots tend to be ignored outright. Corporations trying to effectively wield viral marketing tools often find themselves grabbing a tiger by the tail that turns out to be a dead rat. Hope that answers all your questions, Jachin. =) | ZachsMind 16:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• While you are correct that TLE is hardly a game per se, it matches very closely the defintion of alternate reality game. You are also correct that the sponsors of the game are not really making viral content – but, viewing the entire experience as a viral feature it still applies. Regarding the quality of content I made som observations about that earlier (the difficulty of separating fan-made content from the canon because of the flaky home-made quality). Please develop on that to emphasize! --Arru 00:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

New Video

Just to let you guys know, a new video was posted on monster.com http://content.monster.com/pop/default.asp?archiveid=3&mediaid=15&playerid=1 hope you enjoy it, unless you already found it then oh well

Timeline

Currently the timeline is hopelessly incomplete. There are websites devoted to spanning the Experience, and I'm afraid due to lack of will by editors that we cannot maintain one. I think we should turn the list into a section spanning events chronologically, in prose. Before collapsing the section, I'd like some input. Thanks. -- Wikipedical 21:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• I have begun converting the timeline to prose. -- Wikipedical 21:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Lost Experience at Lostpedia.

Can you please leave that Lostpedia link in the article? Lostpedia is far more detailed in the Lost Experience than wikipedia is, and it is updated faster with more infomation on the Lost Experience. It's also just another way to get infomation on the Lost Experience, in a wiki form. So can you please let it in the external links? dposse 19:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Lostpedia does not meet the WP:EL guidelines. In fact it's the exact opposite of those guidelines. If you are not happy with the amount of content here, add more yourself. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 19:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

As a neutral party, I just took a quick look at the (formerly) linked site, and given the guidelines a quick review. Right now, I'm afraid I don't see which guidelines it goes against. Initially, I would think this would fit under Guideline 5 of "What Should Be Linked To". What do you see it as violating? --Reverend Loki 20:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, Lostpedia thrives with unverified original research and theories. This is something Wikipedia should avoid. -- Wikipedical 14:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not a reason to deny this website to be added to the extenal links. Lostpedia might not be perfect, but it's a hell of alot more dedicated to the Lost universe than wikipedia and it has much more infomation on the clues of the Lost Experience than wikipedia has. I think users who click the link can tell if the infomation they are looking at is original research or theories, and make the decision themselves if they want to read it. Besides, i do not believe the original research and no theories rule applies to links to other websites. and have you even read WP:EL that you think denies this link to be added to the article? Let me post a few paragrapgs from that:

1. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.

1. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks.

1. Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. (Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.)

Don't you see now? The link to Lostpedia is perfectly fine. dposse 16:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to seond the assertion that LostPedia is a valid external link. While there is speculation and original research, it is often clearly marked as so in 'Theories' sections. Additionally, it clearly fills the bill as a major Lost fansite, as well as one that contains meaningful and relevant content not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia (hence speculation is appropriate for there, but not here). Also, more specific to this page, it has an extensive and verifiable description of the Lost Experience. A screenshot of Lostpedia's pages have even appeared in the Lost Experience itself, which should indicate that the creators of the Lost Experience find the site significant. I think this is especially relavant for a set of artcles that are often plagued with speculation and fancruft from overzealous editors - a link to LostPedia provides an easy way to redirect that out of Wikipedia. Blade 18:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I also do not understand how http://www.lostpedia.com is any different from http://24.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page. If that 24 wiki can be on the 24 articles, there is no reason why Lostpedia can't be on Lost pages. dposse 16:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikia is an interwiki site founded by the same people that found and run Wikipedia. Linking between these different wikis is common practice. Lostpedia is a fansite and not managed by any members of Wikipedia. If we allow one fansite, then there will be arguments to add more. We can't pick favorites like that. It'll be a mess. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Who said anything about picking favorites? Just because we allow one website in, doesn't mean that it's going to be a slippery slope into anarchy. Also, the 24 wiki is a fan site that is run by fans. It doesn't matter who owns it. It wouldn't have been started if the people who own it and run it are not fans. And did you look at your own rules that you gave to me?

"one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such."

How can you thrust the guidelines in my face, and then hide from what they say? We don't have to provide all links to every fansite on Lost on this article. I'm only asking for Lostpedia because it has infomation that isn't suitable for wikipedia. dposse 21:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

(Semi)Neutral Summation: It occurs to me that, really, it doesn't matter who owns specialised wiki. That difference between the 24 wiki and the Lost wiki shouldn't matter. What it really boils down to, as far as I can see, is if the material it contains is suitably factual or not - or at least, strives to be. If so, then it could fit in rather well, especially under the guideline for a site with more specialized info - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and a lot of the info in the Lostpedia doesn't belong here because it is way to specialized. What fits in Lostpedia would be labeled fancruft here. Personally, judging based upon what I've seen, I think the link should stay. --Reverend Loki 21:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd add that simply because a Wiki exists on Wikia does not mean its content meets the same criteria as Wikipedia content. Blade 01:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not defending Wikia's content, but linking to Wikia sites is common and accepted under WP:EL. Plus there is a Wikia template for linking there. However, there is no Lostpedia template, so we're really comparing apples and oranges here. On second thought it's more like apples are dirt, where Lostpedia is the dirt. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 02:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems reasonable discussion is not going to happen here. Have fun, J. Blade 06:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

And lostpedia is also accepted under WP:EL, as i've shown in this discussion. So what exactly is the problem here? dposse 17:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability is key. To quote WP:EL under Links Normally to be Avoided, "any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research." This is Lostpedia for you. About half of each article on Lostpedia is Theories and other unverified original research. A lot of Lostpedia's information in fact is credited to Wikipedia. -- Wikipedical 01:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As Blade stated, the theories are marked as theories. If you look at the Lost Experience Clues section, all infomation that is not a theory can be verified because it's either copied and pasted from the website in question, or it tells you how to get it. Lostpedia clearly fits under number six of "What should be linked to" and number three of "Occasionally acceptable links" of WP:EL. dposse 01:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Lostpedia should be linked on here, because a clue in the lost experience was on there. A glyph for hansoexposed.com was found on the site, and I think that if lostpedia is so popular that it was actually used in the Lost Experience, it should have a link on Wikipedia. Plus, it has lots of accurate information about the Lost Experience and Lost. Kate 20:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Informal Vote: Lostpedia Link

We don't seem to be making any progress in the discussion above, and so I thought I'd take a straw poll here. The idea is, we all list our vote on the matter. If you want, you can include a short explanation - say, nor more than a brief sentence. This isn't the place to argue points - that's what above is for. Vote Yea if you are in support of the link, Nay if you think it shouldn't be here. Please be sure to sign your vote, and follow the format - I well provide the example.

• Yea - I don't see any reason not to. --Reverend Loki 02:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

A vote is definately not the move we should be looking for at this point. We should be looking to form a consensus and continue our discussion, not try to shut out an opposing arguement with a vote. -- Wikipedical 00:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, the whole point wasn't to make some finalized vote. The whole point was to gauge who stood where, so that we can try and move forward from there. The above "discussion" wasn't making any progress, as the two sides have just become further polarized. I was attempting to come up with another way to resolve it before people started crying to a moderator for dispute resolution, or reporting each other for vandalism. But, it looks like noone wants that, so I've struck it out. Go on, continue as you were. In my view, though, it's progressed beyond hope for a nice resolution now. --Reverend Loki 01:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As i see it, it is three against two that the link should stay. dposse 03:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Straw polls aren't binding votes, and aren't intended to be. See Wikipedia:Straw polls. --PKtm 04:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the poll. I was talking about the discussion that i started above. dposse 05:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've encountered this issue in other Lost articles, and, as then, think that a Lostpedia link is justified. It contains information that does not match Wikipedias standards, but the non-factual parts are marked as such - theories - and of interest to many Lost fans. Arru 22:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That's four against two, for the lostpedia link. dposse 23:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As I alluded to above, it's not about the score. What's your point in continuing to cite the numbers in this fashion? -- PKtm 23:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be holding this conversation in the main article's talkpage? LostPedia isn't exactly part of the Lost Experience... Anyways my opinion is that LostPedia should definatly be linked from the main Lost page. It think it has received more than enough coverage for that. That was also the opinion of the editors when I put the LostPedia article up for deletion review.[1]--Sloane 14:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My point is that not only does the rules of wikipedia give permission for a Lostpedia link, but it seems that more people want the link in the article than are opposed to it. I know that means nothing to you, but i find it interesting. dposse 15:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Would Lostpedia be considered for inclusion by an academic thesis on the subject? Would it be cited as a credible and noteworthy place for information by Encyclopedia Brittanica? Probably not. External links are suppose to add encyclopedic value to the Wikipedia article. Lostpedia does not do that. WP:EL, under rare occasions, allows one fansite. Lostpedia is the opposite of an encyclopedia. It's a fansite in every sense of the word, and nothing more. No matter how many people want to link to Lostpedia, policy simply forbids it. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 15:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. Which is another reason why the "vote" doesn't really matter. It's a very bad idea to include links to non-encyclopedic material; it tends to drag down the encyclopedia to that level. -- PKtm 15:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we don't just add the link as extra "neutral and accurate material not already in the article" but I suggest we put a sentence about Lostpedia in the main article (because lostpedia has achieved quite some notability) and then add a link as covered under WP:EL ("What should be linked to 1. Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one.") --Sloane 16:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Jtrost, do you have some kind of personal grudge against Lostpedia? Why it is that even though i showed you evidence that wikipedia allows Lostpedia that you are still harshly against it? We both agree that the website is allowed under Wikipedia guidelines, so what exactly is the problem? dposse 15:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I consider the above a personal attack, because Jtrost has duly explained his reasoning above; labeling someone's stance as a "personal grudge" is, well, personal. User dposse has refused to alter his text above, despite my polite request to him to do so, so I'm striking it through again. My doing so, despite what dposse may say or think, is not vandalism; it is an attempt to enforce a key Wikipedia tenet. As stated in WP:NPA, if the edit that is being reverted could be interpreted as a good-faith edit, then don't label it as vandalism. -- PKtm 21:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You are clearly over-reacting. A personal attack is saying "[someone] is a asshole". I am just asking a question. dposse 23:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that you view Dposse's comment as a personal attack, PKtm, but unless I'm way off here, editing someone else's comments on a talk page is very much taboo, unless you are a mod acting in the role of a mod, or if it is your own talk page. It's a matter of two wrongs not equalling up to a right. Now, that said, how about getting this train wreck a little closer to on-topic? --Reverend Loki 22:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but it IS a personal attack. Please review WP:NPA. And I'm not editing it (although I've asked dposse to do so, and he refused) per se, I'm striking it out, which is different. Personal attacks are unacceptable here. It'd be better for you to exhort dposse to actually change his phrasing, now that someone (i.e., me) has objected to it. As I pointed out to him, did he somehow expect Jtrost to respond with, "oh, yes, I DO have a personal grudge"? Clearly not, hence it's a personal attack, an unacceptable, "in your face" way of interacting with a fellow editor. -- PKtm 22:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop overreacting. It was not a personal attack. And editing someone's comments on a talk page is incrediably rude. Go cool off. --Sloane 00:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

PKtm, you have been told multiple times by several people that editing someone else's comments in a talk page is bad etiquette. Whether or not it is a personal attack is entirely irrelavent. If you think it is, then go report it to a mod. Editing their comments is wrong. It's akin to someone making a post entirely against your beliefs and signing your name to it. If you do this again, I will have to assume you are no longer acting in good faith. I really hate having to be the "bad guy" here, but for the last time - do NOT edit other peoples comments! (And yes, merely adding a strikethrough IS editing their comments - saying otherwise is sort of like reinforcing the wikiality myth.) --Reverend Loki 05:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As I've pointed out on Reverend Loki's user talk page, "I regret that we disagree on this (the comments on Talk:Lost Experience). The energy that you're spending worrying about me "editing" someone's comments (when I strike through an obvious personal attack) should be going into stopping people from issuing personal attacks. I'll continue to fight against people who attack others and who refuse to remove those attacks or tone them down. Again, sorry you don't see things the same way, but I'll live with that. If you feel so strongly, take it to WP:ANI." I should also note that if you read various entries on Dposse's user talk page (here and here, for example), other people have been warning him for months about his inclination to make personal attacks. Those warnings obviously haven't been effective. Strike-throughs of personal attacks are actually a not uncommon WP way of visibly underscoring that such styles of interacting are unacceptable in our community, without resorting to actually removing the text itself, which is a more drastic (but also seen) approach. Those who are jumping up to defend Dposse in this case, I feel, are unfortunately contributing to him not learning that these kinds of attacks are wrong. -- PKtm 04:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Noone has tried to defend Dposse. Whether or not it is a personal attack is questionable. Whether or not editing anothers comments is kosher is not. It doesn't matter what you think warrants a valid use of our time - that doesn't defend yourself at all. Next time you get pulled over for speeding, try and say they shouldn't be ticketing you when there are still murderers on the streets, see if that gets you out of it. And I'm not saying you shouldn't fight against what you perceive to be a violation of the rules... what I'm saying is you shouldn't violate the rules yourself to do so. BTW, isn't this the third page you posted that response to me to? And the only time I've seen strikethroughs used acceptably have been when done by the original poster, or by a mod. Now, I'm done talking in regards to this. If it hasn't gotten across to you yet, I don't think any amount of talk will. --Reverend Loki 16:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Lostpedia is not a fansite, so a 'fansite' justification cannot be used. I do not believe Lostpedia adds any additional encyclopedic information to this article. As I've said somewhere earlier, a lot of Lostpedia is cited to Wikipedia in fact. Also, while it is labeled such, I would not consider the "theories" sections in Lostpedia articles helpful to our article. And a lot of the opposing arguements that I'm hearing are not indicating that Lostpedia will be a helpful addition to this article, they are arguing 'according to policy we can legally put it in the external links.' I don't think we should look at this in terms of legality in Wikipedia policy, we should try and maintain the most informative and objective page that we can. -- Wikipedical 22:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• As I've said before: I suggest we don't just add the link as extra "neutral and accurate material not already in the article" but I suggest we put a sentence about Lostpedia in the main article (because lostpedia has achieved quite some notability) and then add a link as covered under WP:EL ("What should be linked to 1. Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one."). Having an informative and objective page includes reporting on notable subjects associated to the article (in this case a website) imo. --Sloane 16:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I do not think Lostpedia is relavent to this article. Maybe you'd want to include Lostpedia in the main LOST article, but I don't see why you want it in Lost Experience, specifically. That's another discussion for another talk page, but there is no notable correlation between Lostpedia and the Lost Experience. -- Wikipedical 02:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • With main article I meant the main LOST page. --Sloane 04:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
      • If you are willing to agree that a Lostpedia link serves no purpose in the Lost Experience page, then please move continued discussion to the talk page of the main LOST page (Talk:Lost (TV series)}. -- Wikipedical 16:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Okay: Talk:Lost_(TV_series)#Lostpedia --Sloane 18:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sublymonal and Xanga

I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss it, but since Sublymonal redirects here, I might as well post it.

In any case, for the last few months, I've been seeing "sublymonal" messages on Xanga, triggering generally at random. Is this "sublymonal" related to the "sublymonal" in this article? Viltris 07:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, it most definitely is related. I just discovered the trigger--a little Sprite icon. Viltris 07:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

5 phases

A new source has come up, a Disney-ABC press release, mentioning among other interesting things, 5 phases to the experience. I've partitioned the timeline accordingly and added a disclaimer at the start instead of saying "presumed" at each breakpoint. Arru 22:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What phase are we in atm? Squidfish 09:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Linux users can not participate in the Lost Experience

due to Flash version limitations and the sites requiring the latest versions of Flash, Linux users can not participate in much of the Lost Experience. Latest version of Flash available for Linux is Flash 7 while the sites require Flash 8 or higher. --GURT 03:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Use Windows —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.242.132.180 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 31 August 2006.

I have used linux for some parts of the experience and had no troubles with flash or java or anything..it all seems to work for me. I think it depends on what version of linux you have. Squidfish 09:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

DJ dan commercial during Kyle XY?

I was atching Kyle XY a few days back and I saw a commercial for DJ DAN advertising some kind of Radio Marathon. Did anyone else see it? --TorriTorri^{Talk to me!} 21:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Lostpedia Included *IN* The Lost Experience

On August 25, 2006 it became apparent that Lostpedia.com had in fact been included in The Lost Experience. The elusive "Glyph #42" was hidden on the Lostpedia servers by a Lostpedia user named "RachelBlake". How much more notable and relevant can one get? I believe this warrants inclusion in this article. --Kevincroy 06:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• I am a SysOp on Lostpedia, and I can confirm that we have been part of the Lost Experience, but there seems to be a jealousy on behalf of some of the editors here, so we aren't allowed to have an article or a link, even though sites such as Wookiepedia can. --217.65.158.119 09:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• I think articles on LOST should mention Lostpedia because it is the prime source of material too detailed to include in Wikipedia. However, just as YouTube is not part of the lost experience because certain clues have been hosted there, Lostpedia is not a part of the Lost experience for the same reason. Check out the list of websites at Lostpedia! Arru 10:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• I agree, any site that is not linked directly with lost can still become part of tle because they can use any site they like to post new stuff.....some official stuff has been on youtube, why not lostpedia and the rest of the internet? Squidfish 22:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Happy Mother's Day

I am relatively new, but i dont htink any one pointed out the backwards writing on the clipping found here: http://www.letyourcompassguideyou.com/usr/hmcintyr/mail/news_ad.jpg . I dont have any good experiecne with editing pictures so i cant read it too clearly, but i did put it in ms paint and flipped it and i can pretty clearly see "If you are one, know one" in about the center of the page with another word or so being covered by the main article. Also at the bottom the phrase "Happy Mother's Day!" is apparent. any one else notice this or have more info? 63.165.176.75 19:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is a scan from a newspaper. The bacwards writing is simply what's on the next page, and is not relevant to the Lost Experience :-P — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 19:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Phase 4

As I understand it, the glyphs were phase 3 and apollo candy was phase 4. Am I missing something, or is the article incorrect? --TorriTorri^{Talk to me!} 07:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The (now commented out) point made on the main article page suggests that the glyphs were phase 4, and the Apollo candy was phase 5. I commented it out because it wasn't really relevant to most viewers, but editors should know that it needs to be rewritten. — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 11:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Purgatory

On the subject of Bad Twin, the article claims that the fact that the author's name is an anagram of the word "purgatory" suggests that "the book may itself be a red herring as the purgatory theory has been refuted." Huh? What "purgatory theory"? --Trevor Burnham 06:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In the early days of Lost season 1, a popular theory among fans was that the castaways had died in the plane crash and were in purgatory. This was quickly denied by the creators. Some suspect that the theory was actually correct and the creators had to backpedal and come up with a new explanation after the truth was guessed too early. 4.226.111.89 00:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)