Talk:Lostpedia

Peer review

From Wikipedia:Peer_review/Automated/November_2006#Lostpedia Peer review: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
• Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
• As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.
• This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AZ _t 21:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Lostpedia' is a web based, engaging advertisement?

No, it's not. It's an independent wiki. ABC did post a clue on lostpedia, but that doesn't make it an A?BC site. What would make you think the site is an ad for the show? --Milo H Minderbinder 14:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The citation for all of this is an advertising article [1]. I can't read the full text of the article, but it appears to be talking about ABC's official wiki and the Lost Experience. If it does claim that Lostpedia is run by ABC, it's at odds with the creator, and ABC's practises for all the other sites in the Lost Experience.

The recent edits also add copyrighted screen captures of Lost, for which there is no fair use rationale - we're not discussing anything in the pictures, only that these pictures "were on lostpedia". The edits also claim that lostpedia "was recognized as one of the five basic Internet activities a "Lost" fan must engage in to keep abreast of a "closed world where only the initiates feel welcome."" - while this is a reference to Lostpedia, it's an indirect reference in a satirical piece on Lost fans. In this case, "was recognised as..." is an overly ironic way of making the reference. Perhaps instead, you could say "Contributing to Lostpedia is considered a regular activity for the stereotypical Lost fan".

I took out most of the edits until they can be shown to be accurate - I put back in an edit that said Lostpedia gained "notoriety" in a German newspaper, even though it doesn't say what the controversy actually was - the paper's online search function can't find any mention of Lost in the website or the print edition for the past year, never mind on the specific date of September 11, 2006 (which is the same date as the Advertising Age reference) - I'm assuming good faith and presuming the online search function of Stuttgarter Zeitung isn't working correctly. 62.31.67.29 15:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

62.31.67.29 15:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• The site is an engaging advertisement for Lost as identified in the advertising article references from Advertising Age and other sources that were cited by me (and deleted(!) by 62.31.67.29). Here is the footnoted lead I posted which was deleted even though the deletion was based on the failure to "read the full text of the article" -- Jreferee 16:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC):Lostpedia is a web based, engaging advertisement for the multi-platform Lost Experience which, in turn, is based on the ABC drama show Lost. While somewhat difficult to quantify, Tom Lowry of Business Week called Lostpedia "a replica of online user-generated Wikipedia, that is dedicated solely to all things Lost." In particular, Lostpedia receives content from Lost fans and provides detailed synopses of Lost episodes, Lost character biographies, and other wiki articles that may relate to all things Lost.

Engaging advertisement? You be the judge

Here is why I think Lostpedia' is a web based, engaging advertisement. In the footnoted reference that was deleted by the very new, but unnamed user 62.31.67.29, Atkinson, Claire. (Sept. 11, 2006). Advertising Age (Midwest region edition). Getting creative with web games. Volume 77; Issue 37; Headnotes section; Page S4, the article stated that "ABC banishes bland promos, marketers play off the plot with multi-platform 'Lost Experience' ... "I'm looking at marketing more like content," says Mr. Benson. "We have got to find other ways to engage beyond the typical promo. If we can take the program, explore the stories and perpetuate the mystery ... and people can share this stuff, it furthers the relationship with the audience. We're crafting content, and we work with the sales department and... integrate them with the original marketing materials." ... In the interest of creating engaging advertising, marketers have been working with ABC and the "Lost" team to create media plans for fake companies and odd websites on subjects as obscure as canine clairvoyance. For instance, Verizon "allegedly" advertised such a site called retrieversoftruth.com in an episode of "Boston Legal" last season. (We say allegedly since the marketers aren't allowed to talk until the game winds up.) Solving puzzles takes fans to a bulletin that looks like it is written by former Verizon employees. Other examples of "Lost"-related websites and alternate platforms include: ... Lostpedia.com (everything you ever wanted to know about the show from Wikipedia)... .") -- Jreferee 16:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And that article lists Lostpedia under "other lost RELATED websites". It isn't included in the section talking about sites created by ABC (the "engaging advertising" stuff). And don't try to devalue edits just because they were done by anonymous people, they have every right to make edits and in this case it was the right call. By the way, where did you find that chunk of text? The footnote doesn't link to it and I was unable to find it online. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• I really wish I didn't have to be Civil, otherwise I'd really tell you just how dumb Jreferee sounds. --Iron Chef 00:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Banner

This page falls within the scope of the Lost WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve all Wikipedia articles relating to Lost. Thus, I added and reinstated the WikiProject Lost/Banner template. If you do not feel that this article is not a Wikipedia article relating to Lost, please explain before deleting the WikiProject Lost/Banner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreferee (talk • contribs)

I'm not surprised that it was removed, but how exactly does Lostpedia not fall under "all Wikipedia articles relating to Lost"?--Milo H Minderbinder 17:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. The scope of WikiProject Lost states "Our project is designed to help collaborate a group effort in improving all articles related to the television series Lost." Lostpedia is an article connected to the television series Lost by characteristics shared with the television show Lost. One editor labeling the Lostpedia article a fan site is irrelevant to this fact. I agree that this Lost Experience fansite is not include in the scope of WikiProject Lost even though the article Lost Experience is within the scope of the stated WikiProject Lost. User:MatthewFenton deleted (and again deleted) the WikiProject Lost template on the Lostpedia talk page without explaining his actions on the talk page. Just because User:MatthewFenton started WikiProject Lost, it does not give him the uncivil right to delete the posts of others without proper discussion. -- Jreferee 17:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The template should definitely be there. Tulane97 18:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

All "articls relating to lost" - not "all websites relating to lost." thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And an article about a website relating to lost doesn't relate to lost? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. A website about Lost.. The article is regarding the website its self.. i.e. its not relating to something like a character.. an episode. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article does not need to belong to the WikiProject Lost. The Websites project is more fitting. --Jabrwocky7 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it fits into both, after all Lostpedia is an article in relation to Lost, is it not? As was said earlier, User:MatthewFenton may have started it, but that doesn't give him dictatorial right to decide what belongs in the project and what doesn't. Wookiepedia is part of WikiProject Star Wars, and Memory Alpha is part of Wikiproject Star Trek, so it does apply. --217.65.158.118 13:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Not only is it my opinion that Lostpedia is part of a full discussion of everything Lost, and thus should be included in a Wikiproject about Lost, but I also think that there should be links from Wikipedia Lost articles to corresponding Lostpedia articles, when the Lostpedia article has significantly more canonical (i.e. verifiable) information than would be appropriate for Wikipedia. 62.31.67.29 12:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice. Also note that Lostpedia has started putting user theories in a separate tab, making their main articles much more canonical. Tulane97 15:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Notoriety/Stuttgart

I fail to see how this belongs in the notoriety section. Since this site is in German, it might be more appropriate for an entry on de.lostpedia.com in the German Wikipedia. --Jabrwocky7 17:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as it claims notority, yet doesn't say what kind of notability, then links to the newspaper's main site where the content in question isn't there, it needs citation, or needs to be removed. --90.192.92.48 18:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Not all newspaper articles have direct web links, but they're a verifiable and reliable source just as much as a book or magazine. Wikipedia does not demand web-only references. Wyatt Riot 23:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

True, but there needs to be some way to verify the info. I'd feel better about the reference if someone could actually confirm it. How do we know that it's not made up? Searching the paper's website turns up no results for Lostpedia. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ring up the company who prints it and ask for a dated copy. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a valid concern, one I've definitely had in the past, but I believe it's an impossibility on Wikipedia. Many references are never going to publish their content on the web, let alone their back issues. I think we just have to assume good faith when it come to references, especially when there is a reasonable amount of information for a researcher to track down that article. Wyatt Riot 00:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Further more it says notoriety but doesn't explain WHAT its supposed to be notorious in that publication for. Its bad faith editing. You could accept it if they said what the notoriety was! --90.192.92.209 15:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Lost pediatrics

In answer to your question posted else where, an article on hospitals losing their pediatric care facilities to budget cuts and the like belongs some where else as it is disambiguous. -- Jreferee 16:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

a gentle suggestion for matthew fenton and the anon currently engaging in a revert war

why not discuss the matter on the article's talk page instead of engaging in behaviour that, whilst not in violation of the 3RR, goes against the spirit of why that rule was established in the first place? just a thought. --Kaini 02:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the argument that the Lostpedia article contains no info about Lost -- the "Lost in popular culture" also contains no info about the show, yet it is part of the Project. Tulane97 14:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with this. The page should reflect consensus - if you're going to revert either way, you should be able to demonstrate consensus first. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Should this be part of the Lost Wikiproject

Part of the Project : Its about Lost. The Lost wiki project should look after all Lost based articles, even ones directly not about the show. Lost in popular culture doesn't contain anything directly about the show, but is still included, so should Lostpedia be. --90.192.92.209 15:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I added something similar to the WikiProject Lost page. 62.31.67.29 17:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree : the websites wikiproject is, as noted in comments, pretty much dead. And to claim the lostpedia article doesn't fall within the parameters of wikiproject lost indicates a problem with the parameters of that wikiproject as opposed to this article, to be frank. i mean the article is about a website which is exclusively concerned with lost - that, to me, is a nobrainer. --Kaini 02:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Self-reference

Regarding the sentence - "Lostpedia was also denied an entry in Wikipedia for several months..."

I don't think we need such self-referential content in the encyclopedia. Nor do I think that there was some discussion and debate about the Wikipedia article is descriptive of the Lostpedia resource. Many articles go through a similar process, but it does not become part of the definition or description or the subject in question.-Dr Haggis - Talk 21:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, its a bit of an unnecessary addition. I also think the first line of that subsection should be reviewed - saying under criticism that a German magazine made "some comment" about Lostpedia is a bit random - there is no mention what the comment was or how it sparked any controversy. --Nickb123 3rd 23:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If the issue was considerably controversial on WP, the sentence should stay. --Jambalaya 00:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately the article is about Lostpedia.com, not the WP article. Editing and inclusion debates are not part of the definition of the topic. -Dr Haggis - Talk 21:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

agree Sexyorge

Licence vs Function

Angela recently removed a "false and unsourced statement" regarding the site's free use and it's ability to be edited. The site is indeed free to be read by anyone, and editable by anyone with a free account, but the Non-derivations portion of the CC license seems to be at odds with this. Ideas for article resolution? -Dr Haggis - Talk 21:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• The site is freely editable, provided that you confirm your email address. They should probably change their license from cc-by-nc-nd to cc-by-nc, which only forbids commercial use and not editability. Johnnyjohnny 19:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • See the Free Content Definition for an explanation of why cc-nc licenses are not considered free content. It's free to read but not free as in freedom. Angela. 22:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review

Hello, here are my comments with respect to promotion to WP:GA.

• "The site licenses its content under an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Creative Commons license, which means that the site's content is available for free to the public, but can't be used for commercial purposes and shouldn't be modified by people who aren't part of the community of the website." - wow, mouthful, not really LEAD-worthy...
  • Make it less technical sounding.
  • Avoid "can't" and "shouldn't" and "aren't" - cannot, should not, are not.  Done
  • "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs" - avoid using this altogether.  Done
• The Image:Lostpedialogo.png image needs fair use rationale.  Done
• Subject matter section needs to have all the small paragraphs merged. Also citations are required - only the last assertion is cited and it uses the Lostpedia to do it.  Done
• "The Lost series has a complex and cryptic storyline which spawns numerous unresolved questions." - says who? Cite or it's original research.  Done
• "Encouraged by Lost's writers and stars, who often interact with fans online, viewers and TV critics alike have taken to rampant theorization in an attempt to unravel the mysteries." - ditto.  Done
• "Where speculation is the subject of the article, such as when covering a fan-made website, the entire page is clearly labeled as "fanon"." - citation required.  Done
• Ref [11] can be moved to end of sentence to right hand side of punctuation per WP:CITE.  Done
• "The site was additionally criticised for its lack of citation for which episodes certain points or quotes are from. Consequently, a cross-referencing template was enforced across Lostpedia's articles." - who criticised it? Citation needed. Also, there appears to be a mix of US and British English in the article (criticise versus rumors for example).  Done
• International sites not cited.
• You may wish to increment all accessdates to today as I checked all references!

So, some things to attend to, most notably lack of fair use rationales and lack of citations. So I'm going to place the article on hold for up to seven days to see if the issues can be dealt with. The Rambling Man 17:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I addressed most of your issues and added the "done" template. Instead of trying to fix a few things; I just removed them, such as "fanon," "criticised for its lack of citation." Do I need to cite the international sites? They are in the external links. --thedemonhog talk • edits 19:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're nearly there - I corrected your fair use rationale image - you said it was from Starbucks (copy/paste problem?!) and modified the flow of the international sites a bit so its prose has been improved a bit. The only thing I think that needs verification now is "The UK and Irish audiences now see episodes within a week of US airing, which minimizes the impact of this." - I didn't know this so I think it should be cited. The Rambling Man 09:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Aah, you got me with the Starbucks copy and paste.  ;) I added a couple of references to show that the UK and Ireland are airing the episodes sooner now. --thedemonhog talk • edits 17:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. That works for me so I'm promoting to GA. Well done. The Rambling Man 18:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Community reassessment

For those who haven't seen the template at the top, I've placed this under community GAR because I feel that it doesn't meet GA status anymore. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I, the GA nominator, had nothing to do with this article's editing prior to the GA review, so I am not too attached to this article, i.e. if there are more than a few minor problems and Cornucopia and Jackieboy87 also show no interest in improving this article, it will lose its GA status. Now, Ten Pound Hammer, why do you not think that it not meets GA status anymore and what can we do to help? –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I am here to help. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 01:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What needs to be done to fix this article? User:TenPoundHammer has never come back to state any reasons. Jabrwocky7 (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

He did state his reasons—just not here: they were at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Lostpedia/1. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Date?

"19, 2001," it states that the wiki was only created in 2005 in the opening to this article, how can it have any articles before the show even aired? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamhaw (talk • contribs) 2010-01-23T22:24:30

Thanks for catching that. I think it was just a typo and supposed to read 2010. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://forum.lostpedia.com/showpost.php?p=2178&postcount=5

  Triggered by \blostpedia\.com\b on the global blacklist

• http://forum.lostpedia.com/showthread.php?t=1

  Triggered by \blostpedia\.com\b on the global blacklist

• http://lostpedia.com/wiki/DJ_Dan_September_24,_2006_Live_Podcast_Transcript/Part_1#Segment_1

  Triggered by \blostpedia\.com\b on the global blacklist

• http://lostpedia.com/wiki/Lostpedia:About

  Triggered by \blostpedia\.com\b on the global blacklist

• http://www.lostpedia.com/index.php?title=Lostpedia:Theory_policy&oldid=112705

  Triggered by \blostpedia\.com\b on the global blacklist

• http://www.lostpedia.com/index.php?title=Lostpedia:Theory_policy&oldid=153479

  Triggered by \blostpedia\.com\b on the global blacklist

• http://www.lostpedia.com/index.php?title=Lostpedia:Use_of_Images

  Triggered by \blostpedia\.com\b on the global blacklist

• http://www.lostpedia.com/index.php?title=Lostpedia:Use_of_Images&action=history

  Triggered by \blostpedia\.com\b on the global blacklist

• http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Image:Lostpedia_glyph.jpg

  Triggered by \blostpedia\.com\b on the global blacklist

• http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Portal:Interviews

  Triggered by \blostpedia\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Lostpedia

Cyberbot II has detected links on Lostpedia which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://forum.lostpedia.com/showpost.php?p=2178&postcount=5

  Triggered by \blostpedia\.com\b on the global blacklist

• http://forum.lostpedia.com/showthread.php?t=1

  Triggered by \blostpedia\.com\b on the global blacklist

• http://lostpedia.com/wiki/Lostpedia:About

  Triggered by \blostpedia\.com\b on the global blacklist

• http://www.lostpedia.com/index.php?title=Lostpedia:Theory_policy&oldid=112705

  Triggered by \blostpedia\.com\b on the global blacklist

• http://www.lostpedia.com/index.php?title=Lostpedia:Theory_policy&oldid=153479

  Triggered by \blostpedia\.com\b on the global blacklist

• http://www.lostpedia.com/index.php?title=Lostpedia:Use_of_Images

  Triggered by \blostpedia\.com\b on the global blacklist

• http://www.lostpedia.com/index.php?title=Lostpedia:Use_of_Images&action=history

  Triggered by \blostpedia\.com\b on the global blacklist

• http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Image:Lostpedia_glyph.jpg

  Triggered by \blostpedia\.com\b on the global blacklist

• http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Portal:Interviews

  Triggered by \blostpedia\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Lostpedia

Cyberbot II has detected links on Lostpedia which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://forum.lostpedia.com/showpost.php?p=2178&postcount=5

  Triggered by \blostpedia\.com\b on the global blacklist

• http://forum.lostpedia.com/showthread.php?t=1

  Triggered by \blostpedia\.com\b on the global blacklist

• http://lostpedia.com/wiki/Lostpedia:About

  Triggered by \blostpedia\.com\b on the global blacklist

• http://www.lostpedia.com/index.php?title=Lostpedia:Theory_policy&oldid=112705

  Triggered by \blostpedia\.com\b on the global blacklist

• http://www.lostpedia.com/index.php?title=Lostpedia:Theory_policy&oldid=153479

  Triggered by \blostpedia\.com\b on the global blacklist

• http://www.lostpedia.com/index.php?title=Lostpedia:Use_of_Images

  Triggered by \blostpedia\.com\b on the global blacklist

• http://www.lostpedia.com/index.php?title=Lostpedia:Use_of_Images&action=history

  Triggered by \blostpedia\.com\b on the global blacklist

• http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Image:Lostpedia_glyph.jpg

  Triggered by \blostpedia\.com\b on the global blacklist

• http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Portal:Interviews

  Triggered by \blostpedia\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lostpedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.insidetheexperience.com/2006/07/back_in_busines.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061109194550/http://au.blogs.yahoo.com:80/lost-ninja/8431/a-conversation-with-tom-and-andy-pt1 to http://au.blogs.yahoo.com/lost-ninja/8431/a-conversation-with-tom-and-andy-pt1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061025093408/http://www.wired.com:80/news/technology/0,71734-0.html? to http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71734-0.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scifi.com/sfw/sites/sfw13095.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rte.ie/tv/lost/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lostpedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://au.blogs.yahoo.com/lost-ninja/8431/a-conversation-with-tom-and-andy-pt1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0%2C71734-0.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060805210042/http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_30/b3994072.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_30/b3994072.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lostpedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060618061752/http://www.sptimes.com/2006/01/10/Floridian/Web_ensnares__Lost__s.shtml to http://www.sptimes.com/2006/01/10/Floridian/Web_ensnares__Lost__s.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lostpedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090125112240/http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/virtualworlds/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207401542 to http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/virtualworlds/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207401542

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)