User talk:ArgentiumOutlaw/Archive01

Apology[edit]

Hi, just wanted to say "sorry!" about beeing rude to you on Gmaxwell's talk page, what can I say. I've had a couple of run ins with people who will fight tooth and nail to keep fair use images on theyr userpages or userbox template even if they know the rules, so when you came to "complain" about such an image beeing tagged as orphanded I just automaticaly asumed you where one of them. I'll force myself to re-read WP:BITE and WP:AGF and remind myself that even if I have explained the fair use rules a thousand times it doesn't automaticaly follow that everyone know about them. So sorry about that snide remark back there. --Sherool (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think nothing of it. I accept your apology, and thank you for taking the time to do so. I can completely understand your feelings though, I'm sure I'd be annoyed too if people broke the rules and kept bothering me about enforcing them. Anyway, thank you again; good luck and take care. ArgentiumOutlaw 19:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Rice_pilaf.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rice_pilaf.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 12:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Down in front!"[edit]

The trick here (that is, with the Dharma Initiative) is not to become too embittered. I'm glad you agree with me, but the only clear way out of this (that is, when LOST ends, whever that may be) is to admit to yourself that someone who disagrees with you is not scum. It's hard sometimes - and Jtrost had made absolutely no effort to concede anywhere - but we'll have to just try and work through this without becoming hateful. -Litefantastic 12:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed he was scum, I just dislike everything he does. I believe sometimes, he does things out of spite even if he himself doesn't believe something. So its not just about his opinions, I think he purposely tries to attack people sometimes. Since he has so much influence and power, he can bully people based on nothing more than a whim. ArgentiumOutlaw 21:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Vote on Ultraviolet map[edit]

Hi I was thinking about taking this whole merge discussion in an entirely different direction. Instead of merging the info on the poorly named Ultraviolet map into the unfocused The DHARMA Initiative. How about we expand on Silentplanet's idea and create sub sections on known Hatches?

Remember the "The DHARMA Initiative" article is supposed to focus on what it is. Adding more information to "the Swan" only shows that this hatch should be expanded upon in another article. The title of this article after all is not "The DHARMA Hatches." To me it looks like we should put in some information about what exactly the DHARMA Initiative is. We should give some history on it maybe include the information on the film and then some brief information about the hatches and what they are. Hatches that we know more about like "The Swan" should have its own page that would then contain information such as "the Map", "The Timer", etc... I think that this is a more reasonable solution and would also make it a more logical solution as an encyclopedia article. Please let me know what you think (in your talk page)! And if you do agree please note that on your merge vote! Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 04:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my personal desire to keep the article I started alive, I have come to believe that the idea for dividing up the Dharma article into seperate hatches and a seperate dharma section is a really good idea. So I will support that and I will comment on that next to my vote in the merge discussion, although I wont change my vote, because the vote is about merging with the DHARMA section. If it was to be merged with a The Swan section, then I'd vote for a merge. So I hope it works out, because that is a lot more organized than what is going on now. ArgentiumOutlaw 08:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop Edit warring[edit]

Argentium, I understand that you want to improve the article DHARMA Initiative stations however edit-warring and repeated reverting to your personal version of text is not the way to do so. Please stop aggressively attacking the edits of others you disagree with. See the policy on Ownership of articles. —Leflyman^Talk 17:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't like something and you have more yes-men than other users do, doesn't mean you have the right to harass them and start edit wars with them. You should abide by the rules and discuss before you revert. Please be civil. ArgentiumOutlaw 22:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preventing an edit war[edit]

Having taken a look at the issues involved, I would have to recommend filing an article request for comment. It seems that you have already tried to discuss the matter and failed. Just watch out for the three-revert rule. Stifle (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea, I hadn't thought of it. That should get a fair solution, ...unless they comment on the fact that I should start a poll or something. Well, I've already done it, so good luck to me. Thanks again for the direction. ArgentiumOutlaw 03:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valenzetti[edit]

Do you really think Valenzetti is significant enough for it's own article? How about a merge with Bad Twin? Coffeeboy 17:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if there was a merge with Bad Twin and Gary Troup was thrown in there also, I'd change my vote. But, unfortunately it seems as if the people at that AFD want to delete the info because they think the whole Valenzetti thing doesn't belong on wikipedia (due to lack of credible info). That is what I disagree with, I think there is plenty of verifiable stuff, but if people keep making 'Comments' about what should be done and not actually vote, then the info will disappear. So I guess my vote to keep, is really a vote to keep the information, and less a vote to keep a specific article on Valenzetti. I'd like it if the info on lost was better organized, but it becomes extremely difficult when people keep avoiding discussions and keep deleting info.

Like I said, what I actually believe should be done with the articles is that we should seperate Gary Troup into his own article, and merge Bad Twin and Valenzetti in there. If I change my vote and the info is deleted, then that ideal I have will be a little farther away from being reached. Although, if you think that deleting or changing my vote to merge would actually make a difference in helping the Lost organization somehow, then i'm open to a convincing. I hope my explanation just now wasn't too convoluted, to summarize I guess you could say that my vote to keep was a strategic vote based on future implications. ArgentiumOutlaw 21:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think I will change my vote then. I actually think someone from ABC wrote the original article, but hey that is just my opinion. I would like to see all Troup related articles merged together in honesty. Coffeeboy 15:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote, maybe that helped keep it, don't know. You made a good argument. Kudos! Coffeeboy 18:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It means a lot to me when people complement me on arguments, it tells me that I'm not completely crazy and alone in what I believe in. =) Now that the AFD has ended with no consensus, maybe we can try to split the Gary Troup article and merge everything in there. Unfortunately I don't really know how to nominate things for deletion or seperation, so I'll look into it soon if I can find the time, unless you or anyone else can do it, which will help it move along faster. You have my full support in merging all Gary Troup related articles into one new article. ArgentiumOutlaw 20:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Start a Gary Troup article and I will do the merge requests for Bad Twin and Valenzetti to it. Coffeeboy 13:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Troup (Lost) is up and functioning naked. It's missing a lot of info and sources, which can easily be added (such as the book store sites, and maybe a picture of him in the "interviews"). At least it's a start. ArgentiumOutlaw 21:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]