User talk:Baryonyx/Archive 1

Welcome

Hello Baryonyx/Archive 1 and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Characters of Lost

Hi Baryonyx! I just want to thank you for creating the Characters of Lost page and writing a great summary of Jack. Keep up the good work! Carrp | Talk 23:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Carrp. :) I was hesitating because I haven't really created any pages of consequence before, and this one strikes me as one that'll be potentially big down the road. But when so many agreed, I felt it was better to start as soon as possible. :) Hope to see you around the page, too! :) Baryonyx 23:22, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Also, thanks for dealing with the edits from the anonymous editor in a level-headed fashion, and removing the offensive edits in keeping with the policy of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If he continues to make these personal attacks without constructive comments, he will be blocked. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:13, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

We miss your wisdom on the LOST pages. Hope you make it back soon! --LeFlyman 00:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and archived the Lost talk page as you proposed. Now is perhaps the best time to do it anyway. I left the page move discussion though because it hasn't been closed yet. Just letting you know. K1Bond007 20:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I'd say just police the page and make sure it stays away from getting out of hand with Internet rumors, speculation and original research again. If anything you can point to the discussion we've already had on the matter as a consensus should a problem arise, although a better alternative is to just point out Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on this sort of "material". I'm planning to keep more of an eye on the page this time around. Speaking of Lost-related stuff, just letting you know I replied to your discussion at Jack Shephard. K1Bond007 20:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey, thanks for the compliments you gave me about my organizing of the Jack Shephard article. It really didn't feel like its own page as much as a cut-and-paste from the Characters of Lost page. I figured it would be better ordered chronologically. I wanted to get around to doing this for all of the main characters but haven't been able to. KramarDanIkabu 04:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

In recognition of excellence in editing Lost (TV series)

Thank you for your diligence and hard work in straightening out the LOST articles and constantly improving their content. LeFlyman 20:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar... my first. I guess if, at this point, if I was going to earn one, it has to be for Lost, considering better than 90% of my edits are in and around those pages! :) Baryonyx 21:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Episodes

Hey, got the note on my talk page, but I can't quite narrow it down which comments your talking about. Are you talking about the norwegian newspaper thing? If so, as he states that they are "speculating", it still doesn't belong in Wikipedia. If you're referring to a different section, let me know on my talk page, and include a link to the exact section you're talking about. i.e. Talk:Episodes of Lost (Season 2)#The buildings of the Hanso foundation. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Rutherford

In regard to your message:

"I'm again removing the speculation on character deaths, as per the standards applied by the page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, especially sections 1.3, 1.7. and 1.8, particulary 1.8.3. Your own edit summary on the page for Sawyer admits that it is speculation, and thus by those page standards, should be removed. That is not an NPoV stance, it is Wikipedia policy. I also would invite you to review the sections Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and, in light of your belief that its OK to attack people in edit summaries, WP:NPA, most notably the line "Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded." Thank you. Baryonyx 08:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)"

Several things. My roomate was on my computer and didn't logout before she made the edits. Although I agree with your statement on the standards and speculation, I don't see where any attacks towards anyone, or abusive edit summaries, were made. I am a fan of the show aswell although I haven't had the time to do too many edits for it. On a side note, I also think Sawyer is gonna be the one to go and the Shannon thing is a distraction.

Cheers, (MXM 09:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Fortunately, it looks like this solved itself. Let me know if there are any further problems. K1Bond007 16:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lost

Howdy. We had a discussion a while back about spoiler tags on the Lost article. I took another look at that talk page today and saw that my last response to you apparently didn't take. The gist of it was: thanks for moving the spoiler tag to the top of the article, and while I don't agree with you on all points, I feel that the issue has been resolved. I also hope the discussion didn't get too heated. I was upset about having part of the show spoiled for me and probably pushed things a little too far.

At some point I'm going to try to develop a guideline for the use of spoiler warnings on Wikipedia. Let me know if you'd be interested in joining that discussion (if and when it ever occurs).

Also, I notice that a lot of speculation creeps into the article (and the talk page) and you're doing a good job keeping it out. Thanks! android 79 16:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sun's full name

Sun's page is currently located at Sun-Soo Kwon. As a Korean, the name looked wrong, so I did some research and couldn't find any official sources to back up the name, and instead found an IMDB entry where her name was listed as Sun-Hwa Kwon. I've seen other sources where the character is listed as Sun Paik. So her full given name is definitely Sun-Hwa, Sun-Soo being probably a mistake due to analogy with Jin's full given name being Jin-Soo (which is like expanding "Ken" to "Kenjamin" by analogy with "Ben" and "Benjamin"). The issue though is which surname to use for the article. In Korea, women do not take their husbands' surnames, so unless Sun has legally changed her name, her correct legal surname is still Paik. But perhaps Kwon is acceptable as an anglicized version of the name to help viewers who might be confused that the couple have different surnames. If you have an opinion on whether the page should be moved to Sun-Hwa Kwon or Sun-Hwa Paik, then please leave a message on the Talk:Sun-Soo Kwon. Thanks. --219.254.220.163 06:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Proposal: "Wikipedia is not a fan site"

Hi, Baryonyx,

I've just put in a proposal for an addition to "What Wikipedia is not" connected to the excessive non-encyclopedic material we've been getting on the LOST articles. Please look it over at Proposed addition: "Wikipedia is not a fan site" and offer your comments, if you are so inclined :)

Thanks, LeFlyman 00:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the two articles you mentioned on my talk page, I would recommend them for AFD. I agree that battling the crystal ballers on the eps page is getting tiring, I really don't know what to do about it. I hoped the poll would end things, but it doesn't seem to have stopped anything... --DDG 07:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Harrington looks like clear-cut fanon. You want to afd it? --DDG 15:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier this month, I had the formal text for a "not a fan site" proposal ready to go for a straw poll, which I'd worked on for a couple hours... frustratingly, just as I was ready to post, I had a Web browser freeze-up and lost the text. Should teach me to edit in Internet Explorer. I'll try to recreate the content and put it up in the next few days. The gist was that "Wikipedia is not to be used as a substitute for fan sites, forums, chats rooms or other such fan-initiated Internet resources. It is not the place to introduce predictions of plot twists or outcomes of sporting events. Postings on fan forums do not meet the qualifications for verifiability, and spoiler/rumor sites should not be used as the basis of content." There was more, but I've not yet had a chance to rework what I had written. Suggestions? —LeFlyman 18:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, B,

As promised a while back, I've cleaned up the proposal material, and put it up for pre-posting at: User_talk:Leflyman/Not_a_Fansite. Please take a look at the proposed wording; you may also want to review the comments when I first brought it up on the talk page for What Wikipedia is not in November, which I've copied to the bottom of my "sub-page". Let me know what you think! —LeFlyman 19:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your extensive comments. I'm digesting them now. I'm wondering if I'm missing anything else in the proposal; such as a clearer explanation of why what's appropriate for fan sites, is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Some of what you've written touches on that. I'm not sure, however, how to restate the "decoding" concept within WP terms. —LeFlyman 21:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: More Lost Fun

After your note, I saw that Lessthankris was back to re-inserting the text, and when I noticed just how many times he'd done so, it screamed 3RR time. I hope the temporary block will make him think twice about slipping in his own theories.

I agree that the Fan Theories section is a potential fancruft magnet. The requirement for "sourcing" is pretty sturdy, however, and the notice that only discredited theories are acceptable is a good way to remove the excess of those like Lessthankris. Honestly, I've been more concerned about what has been allowed to take root in the Story Elements. There's no requisite for verifiability for most of it, so the section has become a bevy of unsourced Original Research. I'm not sure how to reign it in.

I think on the LOST articles, we are likely battling similar problems faced by other articles' editors. It would be nice to get buy-in for some of the ideas we have as to what should/shouldn't go into fan articles (in hand with my proposal re: "not fan site" above). With Wikipedia having a super-high rank on Google, what we include in the Lost articles is likely being read by untold thousands of people! —LeFlyman 19:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of images

My apologies. I've since decided, in part fuelled by a minor dispute which has since been resolved, that people are still willing to be reasonable. I'll certainly be notifying in future. Rob Church ^Talk 17:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You too. :) Rob Church ^Talk 17:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Eko

I'm copying you on the same message I posted for Leflyman -- could both of you take a look at the Mr. Eko character page? It has been bugging me for the past few days because it just reads like crap to me -- bad grammar, subtle OR, not encyclopedic. If either of you can help, I would appreciate it. Danflave 06:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- it looks so much better! Danflave 21:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on AfD:Geronimo Jackson

As usual, I agree with your comments about why fresh articles like Geronimo Jackson should be kept out. You may be interested to see my responses to Llywrch who seems to have softened how "fiercely" he believes the article should be kept.—LeFlyman 07:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I forgot to mention that I started an article for the real 70s unknown band Geronimo Black; there's speculation that this is the real origin of "Geronimo Jackson" (but of course, that isn't appropriate to include).—LeFlyman 21:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Benitoite.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Benitoite.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags.

Be my guest. The image that was there was of dubious copyright, so I tried... repeatedly... to replace it with my own image of my own sample taken by myself. When it didn't take immediately, I uploaded the image instead to Image:Benitoite_new.jpg, which is the one I'm using on the Benitoite page. Though the present image is indeed my copyright, which I've released to the Public Domain, we don't need to copies of this image. Baryonyx 16:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Season 2

I totally agree that the second season episode "synopses" are turning into play-by-plays. I've avoided looking at them because the writing is so bad, and figured at some point the people who keep adding to the extraneously over-described summaries would dissipate and we could do something about them. The only other option I can think of is to divvy up the episodes into separate articles, as was suggested earlier. I just looked at Desperate Housewives which I thought used a short summary format like ours, but noticed that they are now using synopses connected to long, separate episode articles: List_of_Desperate_Housewives_episodes. —Leflyman^Talk 17:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Lost Wikiproject sounds like an excellent idea. I've been letting the Not a Fansite proposal percolate, hoping for inspiration to break through the issue on how to describe the appropriate depth of detail, other than as "trivia". Although I previously hadn't advertised the work being done on it, some other editors had noticed it; so I've asked for additional comments at the talk page for WWIN.—Leflyman^Talk 17:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, again; my main frustration with LOST articles has been dealing with anon IP and single-edit users who have no regard for (or understanding of) WP standards. To them, this is just a fan site. I think your suggestion of a LOST Wikiproject is what's needed to organize the burgeoning amount of content that gets generate by the fans of the show. I liked how you edited down that Oceanic Flight 815 article; so I think you'd be ideal to get the Wikiproject off the ground. Josiah should be tapped for his knowledge of this, as he has helped out with the Doctor Who WikiProject since September last year. Incidentally, check out this Wikipedia organizational tool I came across recently: Wikipedia:To-do_list —Leflyman^Talk 23:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the impetus for a Wiki-break. While I find myself still dropping in, I've reigned in my big edit sessions, in order to focus on other things (like my own Web site projects, which were feeling ignored!) I do hope that by the time the new episodes roll around, you (and I) will be Wiki-rested and up to battling the vandal hordes once again. You wouldn't want to miss out on the millionth Wikipedia article-- sometime next week-- would you?--Leflyman^Talk 02:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baryonyx, I hope that nothing I said was the impetus for your Wiki-break. I realize one of my posts may have been rude, and I did not mean to offend you in any way or disregard your hard work. You are an amazing asset to the Lost editing, I hope you will not stay away for long! Danflave 22:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, B, Just discovered your message; it got "lost" on my talk page. Yes, as you and I foresaw, the separate episode articles did get made, which I just started reading through. It looks like this major addition is being ignored at the moment by most Lost editors. There's a discussion about integrating the new content into main articles, among those who put together the individual pages, but this doesn't appear to include the main article editors. I suspect this will come to a head when someone decides to "fix" the Episodes of Lost season summaries by either replacing it with the List of Lost episodes or by pointing the shortened summaries to the individual pages. I don't think the short summaries, which you worked so hard to kick-start, are going to survive. Folks will have to take the veritable bull by the horns and (grudgingly) admit that individual episode synopses are going to be part of the "Lost Project" -- even though no one has (yet) organized such as a formal Wikiproject. Willing to head up the charge for it again? If so, as Hurley might say, I've totally got your back, dude. Hope you return from Wiki-break soon, and in one piece! -Leflyman^Talk 17:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

File:Plunger 250x410.jpg

Thanks for your kind words in my RfA and for taking the time to vote for me. The RfA passed with a final vote of 54/2/1 despite my obvious inadequacy for the job. I'll do my level best to use the mop and bucket — or, as I said in my RfA, plunger — responsibly. Of course, in the best tradition of politicans everywhere, I've already broken a campaign promise (I blocked a vandal last night despite having said "I don't anticipate using the blocking tool very often"). Nevertheless, I'll try not to let the unbridled power corrupt me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need you!

I hope you've had a chance to see the horrible condescension and bitchiness of these nazis who've come in and taken over the episode guide. :( We really need you back to help with a PROPER episode guide. I'll admit breaking episodes up into articles seems to be inevitable. But I can't handle these outsiders coming in, making massive changes, and then (most certainly) abandoning the project and leaving us to fix their mess. I'd rather WE be the ones to do this (and make sure it is done properly). It's going to happen (and is happening) no matter what, so I hope you come back to help! Danflave 17:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm happy to hear that you've re-energized. I completely agree that editing can get draining, particularly when dealing with what appear to be neophyte Wikipedia users. As Dan has pointed out in his unique way above, a number of newly minted editors have swooped in on the Lost articles during your absence to make all sort of ahem...unusual additions. Nature abhors a vacuum, after all. I'm afraid I've come off a bit pedantic with some of them, and caused an uproar in Talk:Episodes of Lost (Season 2) regarding the verifiability of the "computer" as an Apple II. But the greatest issue, of course, was as you foresaw: how to handle the sudden "duplicate" episode guides. I do think your views on the matter would be extremely helpful in the ongoing discussion. I've written to one of the new editors, Bldxyz, who had posted a long list of ways that I came off badly. I pointed out on that user's talk page about your proposed Wikiproject. I'm fully in support of it, but as noted on the Wikiproject page, there would need to be at least 5-10 people committed to make it happen. One thing we might consider is how much of what we have (or plan to have) duplicates the efforts of Lostpedia. On the flip side, our restrictions on speculation do make the Lost articles on WP well-linked around the Web. --Leflyman^Talk 01:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll on Lost articles

This probably has or will come to your attention already, but incase it hasn't, there is a straw poll at Talk: List of Lost episodes to decide the fate of the Lost articles. It is critical that you vote on this. Rillian 19:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:B5 cartagia.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:B5 cartagia.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:B5 firstone.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:B5 firstone.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:B5 lordrefa.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:B5 lordrefa.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:B5 lorien.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:B5 lorien.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:B5 shadows 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:B5 shadows 2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]