Talk:Because You Left
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Because You Left article.|
|Because You Left has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.|
|WikiProject Lost||(Rated GA-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Television / Episode coverage||(Rated GA-class, Low-importance)|
Without a reliable ref for the title, I think this is automatically an AFD (as in an admin will come and nominate it). Just a heads up to the contributer(s) of the aticle. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 08:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- The source is http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20218344,00.html (Doc Jensen), but he doesn't make it clear how he knows this title (could be rumor started by him, could be a production source, could be the casting script). Anyway, this article doesn't say anything (except the title) that isn't already in the Lost (season 5) article. Since this is unlikely to change for the next few months, I'll boldly redirect this article there. Feel free to resurrect this article when the situation has changed. – sgeureka t•c 14:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- It's a month til the premiere, so the timing to recreate this article would be reasonable now. I know User:Thedemonhog is working on this episode in her userspace, but I don't know what her plans are. – sgeureka t•c 19:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it is about time to make the article. thedemonhog has a good version in his sandbox right now. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 19:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I know I should correct them myself, but I thought I'd bring it here first. The first I noticed was that it states the survivors, Juliet, and the Kahana crew all go to the hatch, then move forward in time, then Daniel begins to compare the events to a record. This is not true. As they're heading to the Swan, Sawyer stops everything to ask for a shirt, then demands Daniel explain, to which he compares it to a record. Another mistake I noticed was the mention of the Swan being "rebuilt", which is also not true. It isn't "rebuilt", they've just once again traveled back in time.
I also wanted to ask if, in the sentence where it states Locke was approached by Richard, it should mention that he "has to die" in order to convince the Oceanic 6 to return. In addition, should the mention of the Others not moving through time be included in that sentence, rather than being tacked on to the first sentence in that paragraph? --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've noticed another. Daniel Dae Kim is still listed with the main cast, and I believe Rebecca Mader is also. Should this be fixed? --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- I wrote the plot summary from memory, only having watched it once, so some of the details are off, which you can go ahead and fix if you wish. I used the word "rebuilt" because it seemed less repetitive and simpler than "the survivors travel backward in time again to before the hatch imploded." And yes, DDK and Mader are part of the cast and should be noted as such. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 03:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
edit war nonsense
You folks getting in a ridiculous edit war over a small sensible edit from an IP, going so far as to lock the article, should be ashamed of yourselves. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wow. I cannot believe that this article is still locked over the same ridiculous edit war. You powertripping fanboys are pathetic. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- With respect, it was unlocked. It was only locked again (by my request I'm afraid to say), because some IPs decided to vandalise the page by removing hidden message coding, despite being clearly warned why not to do it; those hidden messages are only meant for the users who edit this page, not to all the readers who don't wish to edit, so blame such IPs as 184.108.40.206, 220.127.116.11, or 18.104.22.168 (though I have my suspicion they are from the same person after looking through the geo-locate feature). I am sorry that you feel that way, but the lock will expire automatically tomorrow. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Listen.... In the LOST mythology, there are two irregularly recurring elements that are always highly awaited. An appearance by the Smoke Monster and a new Orientation Video. Both of these elements have some of the most talked about mysteries attached to them. They are major features slavered over by the fans when they happen For the Smoke Monster, people speculate on just what it is, and exactly what it's purpose is intended to be.
The Orientation Video has several mysteries tied to it. They slowly answer the exact nature of the Dharma Initiative, They provide insight into the nature of the island....I believe that the most intense speculation centres around the Narrator of these videos. Dr Marvin Candle? Dr Wickmund? Dr Halliwax? Three different men who look the same? Three different time periods? What about the missing arm on one version of the Narrator? Just what is the deal with Dr. Marvin Candle?
So, in one moment, a major part of that is revealed. Dr. Pierre Chaing is PURPOSELY lying about his name! A major story point hidden in a small moment.
So I gave it five words to illustrate that this moment exists. "calling himself Dr. Marvin Candle,"
That I have to explain this small addition is lamentable. I had to spend 300 words and a dozen efforts to make a small germaine, true, verifiable and brief edit in a place where I am not only allowed to add my two cents, but actively encouraged to do so. By the way: You know why Sawyer "believes" that Desmond is in the hatch? Because he is! It's not belief, it's knowledge. I initially tried to edit that because I thought there was a word count limit and I was trying to squeeze my thought in. Really, though, it is incorrect.22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, here we go. First you cannot say with 100% full confidence that those are the two things all fans look forward to, therefore it's speculation. It's not very important who he identifies himself as for several reasons; he's already identified himself by this name, if it was a new name, it wouldn't be as bad. And the fact that he's lying about his name isn't necessarily notable right now as he already know seeing as he's been at least three names in the past. And the whole "Sawyer knowing" thing isn't true because he even states something along the lines of "I don't care who is in there". So he doesn't know 100% that it's Desmond. --HELLØ ŦHERE 17:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Right. Well, I'll continue to edit every episode from here on in with completely accurate information, being as terse as possible. Someone seems to be a little overly fond of their editing abilities. This seems to be unreasonable and seemingly purposely obtuse. What is the use of an open source encylcopedia if you are not allowed to include pertinent info? So, here we go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's unneeded info, if you want to include it, go to Lostpedia or one of those sites. And if you willing continue to vandalize, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia altogether. "Five lousy words" isn't an argument. You have not told why it is notable and why it should belong here. I, on the other hand, have mentioned why it doesn't belong. Please stop this, it's getting childish now stating you'll vandalize until you get your way. --HELLØ ŦHERE 22:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- The argument here seems to be what is relevant to the article and what is not. In terms of the plot of this episode, it doesn't matter what he calls himself- it has no direct influence on the events of this episode. It is relevant, however, to his character and the Dharma Initiative that he goes by so many names, which is why it is (or should be) noted in those articles. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 00:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe when it comes to episode summaries, we should just cut-and-paste the official episode summaries from the official website then, to avoid situations like this. And pretty much only allow cosmetic edits after that. For example, when a bone is broken and protruding thru the skin, then in medical terminology it is a Compound Fracture, like what Locke had in that one episode, that JackyBoy chose to make such a big deal over. Whippletheduck (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- We cannot copy and paste per Wikipedia:Copyright violations. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know what it is that you have against me, but dragging this all over Wikipedia is not going to help your cause and is borderline wikihounding. I only responded to this thread because I was asked by user:JpGrB to give another opinion. If you feel that you can improve the episode summaries I have written, you are more than welcome to, otherwise I would appreciate it if you didn't goad me. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 02:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm...Hadn't checked back in since my initial salient points. I see that the PTBs continue to feel attacked by their unwillingness to accept additions. Tell me, "How'sItGoin", what would you accept as 100% proof that it is a big part of the interest of the fan base? I CAN say that the information is VERY important to a large cross section. Looking at fan boards and the like would do that. Is this not research though? An' Whipple? Keep 'em flying, brother.188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like your getting a little paranoid here, JackieBoy. First off, nearly all my edits that I do on Wikipedia are about LOST, if you want to check my CONTRIB log, and while I visit almost every page imaginable to the show, I rarely look at the TALK pages, which is why I am so late in chiming in on this subject. And generally speaking, I do like your episode summaries. Like any fan of the show (and I bet I am just as into the show as you are) I don't usually view the episode summaries as much as I should and normally concentrate on characters and show issues (ie, the others or mythology). Sorry to see you are being as paranoid as you are, that is not my intent, but if we are both LOST fan's, we better get used to each other ;).
To what DemonHog said, OK, I did not know that, but we can certainly make sure that whatever we enter into the Episode Summary page is as "close" to what ABC put's up as possible. After that, obviously, I think that when you see an episode where a character falls and a bone protrudes from the leg, then you medically have a compound fracture, and WEBMD can back that up, yet someone else (won't say name for now) saw fit to start an edit war for something so trivial....... Well that is all I have to quack about for now. Whippletheduck (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- On no other pages where this character features does it mention the particular name he uses in that orientation video. Therefore, it is not needed here. Continued addition will result in a report, possible block, and the page being locked. Before adding again, please bring the topic up for discussion here. --HELLØ ŦHERE 23:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Thought it would be good to see a conversation going on outside the Discussion Page. Be well.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --HELLØ ŦHERE 15:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the note. The info I added seems to be constructive and concise. It briefly expands on the story of the season and the episode. I am not experimenting, though it's gratifying to know that there is a process for experimentation. All the best.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Because You Left, you may be blocked from editing. Also as a side note, although you feel the information is "constructive and concise" it has been decided by the community that the information should not be added. --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Interesting to know. Could you describe "the community" to me a little more, as it seems somewhat insular. I have noted in the "comments" section that this has been debated....Seemingly there is not a consensus. I am saddened by a looming decision to ban alterations. Just below where I type, it states that information must be verifiable. This addition clearly meets that criterion. Also, the use of the word "Vandalize" seems to mean, to some, "Things That I Don't Like" which would not be how I would define the word. Thanks for your note. Best wishes.
This being the latest round. Important to stay above board, donchaknow.
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC) ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Why would I do that? Apparently I am already identified. Also, I am not after recognition. Ouch on the petty, though. I assume it was connected to the grammar thing. I tried to edit it without comment, you kept reverting it back....I even noted it in private on your little private message thing, to no avail. What's a man to do?
The recent edit you made to Because You Left constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Bped1985 (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Accurate, terse, not inflammatory, and innocuous...."vandalism"? Graffito, maybe....social commentary, perhaps. Any reader wouldn't even be nonplussed by the words. Vandalism? Vandalism, here, only means that someone doesn't like it. Seriously, again...FOUR WORDS. Message away, kids. It's been three years. I assume I'll die in another ten. I merely want to add one small piece of info. Who is the august body that decides on four words, again?
Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Because You Left. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Bped1985 (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Didn't vandalize ( and what does 'vandalize' mean to you? I would say I 'enhanced'...at least 'adorned'! Give me adorned! Spangled? Glittered? ). and your threat of being blocked is toothless. You can close the page, I guess...for the umpteenth time. Ultimately, you'll open it. I'll be there...and I'll add the germane info again. Let the undisputed info stay, I'll disappear, and you'll never have to listen to my unreasonable blather again. I refer you to the other two dozen times I argued for the four words.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Because You Left/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- There appears to be an edit problem with User: 220.127.116.11, and it doesn't seem to have been completely resolved yet. Care to comment on it? Ruby2010 talk 22:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's just something so trivial I had to put on WP:LAME.
- Stop deleting four accurate words and the stability is rock solid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Not to complain, but I guess I'll try some different word combinations. Truthfully, though, it seems a long drawn out process for something so small, so innocuous and with info whose accuracy is completely undisputed. It could have been over YEARS ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- First of all, I am not a bot. Second of all, you're correct, this could have been over before. You seem to be the only person continually adding this unneeded information to this article. The facts of the matter are these- 1) Any other episode article where this character is mentioned makes no reference to his other sue of name; 2) Different word combinations will not make up for the fact that you continually add this information even though it's been made clear on the article talk page, your personal talk page, and through edit comments, that the information is unneeded and other editors (the community) feel you're vandalizing. This GA review is to improve the article and get it up to a certain standard here on Wikpedia. Your continued edits are seemingly making that impossible. It was never said by anyone other than yourself that this seems necessary. And in reference to your "years ago" comment, from what I remember, except for a few different IPs, for the most part, the issue had been settled on the talk page and the article reflected the consensus to not include the information, that is until a few months ago when you deemed it necessary. --HELLØ ŦHERE 23:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- And just for a clarification, while looking back through the history of the article, I found that not only did this specific IP start this whole "nonsense war" in October of 2010, but the last time someone else had put this same bit about "Dr. Candle" in (from what I found), was one year prior to that (October 2009). So, it seems, that for a whole year, the matter was settled.
- Hello there, Hello There! Nice to hear from you again! I would say that you greatly mis-characterized the "Edit War Nonsense" section. No need to answer, it's on you. The info is accurate and brief. No one argues it's veracity. People who might look for the time when this moment is revealed could find it here, if not for this issue. This is the mandate of the site, no? Waiting controversy out is not the same as dispelling controversy. It's true that I started this whole thing again, by accident. I stopped in and noticed that the edit had stayed for months and commented on how happy I was.
To the GA reviewer: Sorry that you had to see this. Seriously, though, it's a cheesy tv ep summary...aren't there more deserving articles to look at?
Anyhoo. Best wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
This guy must get points for style? Or at least a special mention for his demonstration of dedication to the Marvin Candle Appreciation Society? That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 00:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- The lead should have a brief summary of the episode's critical reception (just a few components of the episode that seem to have a consensus among reviewers). Ruby2010 talk 20:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Also, the lead doesn't need citations, as it is meant to be a summary of the article (and the citations should thus be in the body). Ruby2010 talk 20:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- In 2007, back in Los Angeles, two lawyers visit Kate Austen (Evangeline Lilly) and serve her with a court order for a maternity test for her and Aaron, Claire Littleton's (Emilie de Ravin) son, whom Kate is raising as her own, but they refuse to reveal their client's identity. The sentence makes sense, but is a little long and wordy. Maybe split into two, or add a semicolon in there somewhere? Ruby2010 talk 20:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- The production section has some tense issues. Following a writing "mini-camp" to map out the fifth season, the premiere's script was written and filming began on August 19. While previous seasons had been filmed in high definition, this season premiere is the first Lost episode to be edited in it.. Choose either past or present tense, and stick with it. Same goes for the rest of the section. Ruby2010 talk 20:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- The reception section looks good. Just reply or edit accordingly to my suggestions/comments and the article will be good to go. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 22:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for making the changes. I would be happy to pass the article, except for the still ongoing issue with the IP user, who again just made an edit that was previously reverted. I can see the merits of both sides of this issue, but since the issue has yet to be completely resolved, I added the issue to the GA talkpage to get a second opinion. I'll put the GA nom on hold for another seven days while the issue gets looked at. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 03:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)