Talk:Lost Experience/Archive 1

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Article organization

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ok, fine by me lol --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info |  ) 02:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: *I oppose a merge. I think Valenzetti should merge with Bad Twin Coffeeboy 20:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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.—LeflymanTalk 20:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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. :)—LeflymanTalk 21:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title: Points of note.

message: 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)
thread_title: Timeline

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Wrong.  Straw polls aren't binding votes, and aren't intended to be. See Wikipedia:Straw polls. --PKtm 04:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't talking about the poll. I was talking about the discussion that i started above. dposse 05:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Informal Vote: Lostpedia Link 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: What phase are we in atm? Squidfish 09:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 phases 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Linux users can not participate in the Lost Experience 

message: 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? --TorriTorriTalk to me! 21:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DJ dan commercial during Kyle XY? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lostpedia Included *IN* The Lost Experience 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Happy Mother's Day 

message: As I understand it, the glyphs were phase 3 and apollo candy was phase 4. Am I missing something, or is the article incorrect? --TorriTorriTalk to me! 07:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Phase 4 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Purgatory