User talk:70.189.77.194

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to DivX, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: DivX was changed by 70.189.77.194 (c) (t) deleting 20086 characters on 2008-01-09T06:40:07+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lost

Look, it's not a "silly made up theory", all right? It's clearly an intentional recurrence that the writers put in there. I've been debating for months with people on whether or not to have that section in this article. Back when there was a separate article for Thematic Motifs of Lost, it kept getting deleted, one because it might not be considered an actual motif, and two because I didn't have an actual source. I was willing to concede both those points. But, now the section is a smaller paragraph in the main article, entitled Recurring Elements, and I actually have a source from a published book this time - an author out there who noticed the same Canada-lies as me and published her thoughts. That said, please stop deleting and denouncing my article. Burnside65 (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The source I cited is a published book that fits the requirements of a secondary source. That's more credible than some of the rest of the references from the Recurring Elements paragraph - many of which are updates on random websites. I also find your claim that this author somehow got her information from me extremely unlikely, and in any case I don't think this person would appreciate you implying she gets all her information from Wikipedia. And yes, no writer has ever said this is intentional, but c'mon it's obvious there's something as minimal as a running joke going on with them, recurring theme or motif or not.
Perhaps I'll stop trying to put this in here, but I think the reason that it gets aggressively deleted sometimes is because of its absurdity - it's no less verifiable than some of the other elements listed here, but it makes the paragraph less attractive. And yes, there are many other recurring elements in the show like car crashes and shootings, but this one seemed the most absurd of all of them that I felt it absurd enough to be noteworthy - something Wikipedia looks for in an article. The Canada-lies are infrequent, but consistently infrequent - spanning from Tabula Rasa to Through the Looking Glass. And again, I'm forced to say "say what you will" because if you honestly think this is coincidental, then I don't feel the need to keep arguing. Burnside65 (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)