Talk:The Lone Gunmen (TV series)

message: :Image:The Lone Gunmen logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:The Lone Gunmen logo.jpg

message: Who is he ? Is is not mentioned in the opening para, put appears as a regular character later. -- Beardo (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A main character who made his first appearance in the second episode. --88.89.87.120 (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimmy Bond 

message: I may be mistaken, but weren't Stephen Snedden and Zuleikha Robinson series regulars/credited as starring along with the actors playing the Lone Gunmen in the opening credits? If so, shouldn't they be in the "starring" field? --71.150.248.191 (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they were. I have the DVD set of the first season right here. IMDB also agrees. If you’re one of the sad souls, who still take this site seriously, just edit it yourself, and hope there’s no Wikinazi patrolling. But I recommend blocking Wikipedia in your firewall.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.191.166 (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starring 

message: As there's only a single season of The Lone Gunmen, and a table is already created at List of The Lone Gunmen episodes, why not bring that table into this page instead of the static list shown now? I added a link, but it seems natural (to me) to combine these pages into one. Eezip (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd leave it as it is. Even if the series did fly below the radar quite a bit, there's still enough information on it as a season to have a list article for it (statistics like airdates, nielsons, home releases, etc). Plus the pilot is deserving of a full article, which I'll probably get round to eventually, at least in part due to the retrospective controversy of the plot. Collapsing the season#s episode list into the overview would signal a decrease in how notable the series is considered and would hamper future articles, I would imagine. GRAPPLE X 19:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Episode List into this page? 

message: The pilot show aired on March 4th, 2001. not March 90th, which is not a real date. Please, someone change it. 
Piebraket (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Apparently whoever deleted some of the revisions managed to protect the vandalised version of the page. GRAPPLE X 04:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 25 January 2012 

message: I recently noticed what has been happening to this article which is basically a complete white wash. I have decided to improve the article with more references and interviews of the show produces and cast. The article should focus around the show being about government conspiracy and not what the X-files was, that is why the ratings were so popular. They were basing it on actual true conspiracy theories and its kind of central to the show and should be this article as well. 72.72.240.141 (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a whitewash to conform to the same policies on content which apply to the entire site. Information must be reliably sourced, not just backed up by the editor writing it or with a tacked-on youtube video. As I've said above, anything added which is not reliably sourced (here or on any other article) is fair game to be outright removed. That's not whitewashing. That's responsible writing. GRAPPLE X 02:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made my best attempt to cite the information I have added, but the information regarding the play on the Assassination of John F. Kennedy I can not cite, yet it's very clear that it is a reference to that. The same for the "Octium Inside!" slogan which you can see in the YouTube clips of the part where the plane is about to crash into the World Trade Center, which is also a clear reference to Intel corporation. Those two parts I can not cite, there is nothing to cite but anybody with a brain could connect the dots. 72.72.240.141 (talk) 15:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that relying on "anybody with a brain" to "connect the dots" falls square into the realm of original research, which is not permissible for wikipedia content. If something hasn't been covered in reliable sources and is therefore unable to be sourced and referenced, then it fails notability guidelines and isn't worth including—something isn't important if no one else seems to think so, after all. GRAPPLE X 15:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What! You are completely way off base, the Octium inside details is 100% central to the first and second episode plots! The Octium 4 is used in the first episode to take back control of the plane, and in the second episode, the second episode is completely about them running around to get the Octium chip back, and they end up in the Octium company building. That is 100% relevant to the article. But not even that it is is recurring thing that spans multiple episodes. 72.72.240.141 (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Apples and oranges. It doesn't matter how plot-important a macguffin is in a show; if no secondary sources can be found to discuss the content, it is not notable enough for inclusion. Source it reliably or it can and will be cut; that's the same rule that applies across every article on the site. GRAPPLE X 18:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I got your sources now after a little digging, I found the actual spoof websites hosted by Fox which are still active and live! 72.72.240.141 (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What you have found is a primary source, which only expands upon the existence in fiction of a fictional item—secondary sources, meaning those removed from the creators of the media being discussed (reviews, analysis, etc) are what is needed to prove notability. It's all in the articles I've been linking here. GRAPPLE X 20:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Listen, ok I actually managed to find another primary source for the information regarding the play on the Assassination of John F. Kennedy as well. The shows characters in the episode All About Yves capture a Men In Black operative and discover several operations dating back to November 11th 1963, which is pretty easy to connect, then they mention the JFK assassination, and state that is the entire reason there newspaper is named what it is. See for your self https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxGWqq4gqQs at 9 minutes and 30 seconds. Now however you and GSK continue to remove any and all information from this article that anybody would even care to look up. If people wanted to know more about the show they would obviously want to know about the premise of the plots! 72.72.240.141 (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you "listen, ok". Primary sources are not the aim. Secondary sources are what is necessary. Reliable ones. I have linked to these policies already and you've quite frankly ignored them. No youtube links, no in-episode information, no straight-from-Fox websites are going to be useful to you here. Please don't add any more information until you figure out the difference between primary sources (generally to be avoided) and secondary sources (what you need and have yet to provide). Thanks.GRAPPLE X 00:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

text: And to add on to what I just said, if the two of you wanted to be good Wikipedia contributors, you'd help with finding the secondary sources, not just section blanking. I've been digging all day, Wikipedia contributors are supposed to help each other, and you two are just destroying my work, which given enough time I can have properly sourced, but you are not even helping, just vandalizing! 72.72.240.141 (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No one accused you of being biased. Site-wide wikipedia policy calls for secondary, not primary, referencing, from reliable sources (generally those with expertise and editorial oversight). That has nothing to do with "bias" and everything to do with being thorough, accurate and verifiable; and as a means of demonstrating that the subject is notable and independently recognised outside of its creators. Fox's sources do nothing to demonstrate that Fox shows are notable—a television critic or news source, however, would demonstrate this. If you can't find reliable secondary sources on a subject, it is not notable and it isn't worth including in an article. Not every subject actually merits article content on the site, which is why we have guidelines on sourcing and notability. That's the be-all and end-all of it. If people want "useful information", either we supply them with reliably-sourced information, or failing that possibility,we leave them to look elsewhere for material which isn't suitable for here. GRAPPLE X 00:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the only thing bringing people to this Wikipedia article was the conspiracy information and back story information. The information which you just completely blanked, which was already here, you blanked the information I did not even add! Nothing on this article is even informative at all now, if I wanted a poorly detailed episode list I could go to the Youtube playlist, and get an accurate and detailed description of every episode. If the article is going to stay in the state that it is in then, I am all for WP:Deletion in that case, because the article now provides nothing useful at all. Also, I just showed you how notable it is outside of primary sources, if it wasn't then there wouldn't be so many Google results of people talking about it, but by your standards nobody can even prove that. And if you can't look past that for a second, and see why this information is useful to the article, in order to help verify it in the process, then I don't know how you call yourself a Wikipedia contributor. 72.72.240.141 (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, as I said earlier none of you seem to understand what "straight from the horses mouth means" http://phrases.org.uk/meanings/336400.html Perhaps Wikipedia policy needs to be changed as well to give some leeway. 72.72.240.141 (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and to come back to this again, in-episode context is a good reference, otherwise all of the G.I. Joe articles are improperly sourced. Because each and every one of those articles references the comic book issues directly. 72.72.240.141 (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitewashing of 9/11 and Conspiracy Theories 

message: After a little digging to provide references to the Octium IV processor and the fictional computer company, I actually found the original sites hosted by Fox Entertainment. The information is getting to be rather large and I am wondering if we should create a whole new article for it? 72.72.240.141 (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed this section because most, if not all of it, was self-sourced from what looks like a fan site. If you can find reliable third party coverage, then feel free to re-add it (while not duplicating that fan site look and feel). A separate article for something from a show that lasted only one season is a bit overboard. GSK ✉ ✓ 22:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

text: At best, only a minor mention is necessary. Anything more and the article becomes needlessly complex. GSK ✉ ✓ 22:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wo wo woo, those are not fan sites, as I said those were the original sites hosted by Fox Television themselves, they are the exact original websites! This can be inferred by imply googling "lone gunmen octium" and you can see plenty of old web posts from 2001 and what not with people discussing it. This is as Grapple_X said, primary source of information, literally straight from the horses mouth! And you did not even bother to read back our earlier conversation from today to discuss with us before you simply came along and blanked the entire section! The information is relevant, and plenty of things like this even get there own articles on Wikipedia. If you felt a section was of low quality then you should help clean it up, not completely blank it, that is against WP:Policy. 72.72.240.141 (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, to add to this I still need somewhere to link back to when I add the information to the character pages about the spoof of them hacking the E-com-con corp. website (the one hosted by Fox Television as an easter egg) 72.72.240.141 (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire section in question resembles nothing more than what one would find on a fan site. I suggest you read WP:FANSITE since you're clinging to policy so closely. Both myself and another editor have disagreed with your additions, so it's time to stop edit warring. GSK ✉ ✓ 02:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And I suggest you read the character bio's at The Lone Gunmen which contains the same information on John Fitzgerald Byers except unsourced, I did not add that information to that article, I added expanded back story information here with the proper citations. I also suggest the two of you read the three revert rule because the both of you are the ones doing the reverting, and section blanking whiping out entire sections, that I never even added to the article, which is suspiciously odd in and of itself. 72.72.240.141 (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  E-com-con Corporation 

message: In the episode list, Episode 12's original air date is listed as June 1, 2001 whereas Episode 13's is listed as May 11, 2001. This would imply that episode 13 aired before Episode 12. I'm assuming this is a mistake, perhaps whoever wrote it meant June 11, instead of May 11?
It is not unusual. Episode count usually refers to the order of production which may differ from the order aired.
This Episode list is not consistent with info on the Website sourced. link  http://web.archive.org/web/20140711003100/http://tvtango.com/series/lone_gunmen/episodes 
TV Tango lists the Episode titled "All About Yves" as being the 12th in the series (original airdate 05/11/2001) and the Episode titled "Cap'n Toby" as being the 13th in the series (original airdate 06/01/2001)... it seems like the Wikipedia page is incorrect. Can someone please confirm the true data and correct the Wikipedia list of Episodes?142.161.234.250 (talk) 11:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Typo?