Do you have an idea for a new wiki? Please share it with us here

From Lostpedia

Template:Ep.

Do you know how long I spent creating that template? I, and a lot of other users I know, like to use "." instead of "x" when writing an episode's number (eg. 3.08 instead of 3x08), so why did you have to delete it? --SilvaStorm

It's the same template as Template:Ep except you're using a "." instead of an "x". It does not display any differently. You'll just need to get used to using an "x" when using the existing template.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 06:55, 1 March 2007 (PST)

Jabr is right here. There is no need for repetition of information. Having two templates makes it a lot more confusing for editors. "Should I use x or .?" "Why doesn't [[Template:Ep|3.08 work]]? You'll just have to get used to the X, as that is what we've standardised on, on Lostpedia.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  07:03, 1 March 2007 (PST)

• There's also another reason it should be uniform. At some point, we might implement a way to cross-reference all the pages that use a template for a certain episode... this would be a very neat thing. You could see every article that links to 2x17, for instance, which would be great for fast fact checking. If you had half the pages with one template, and another arbitrarily using another, you couldn't organize things this way.--PandoraX 13:06, 2 March 2007 (PST)

• Well, Silva, you finally did it. We found this, and the formating of the stage directions compared to your original edits of The Cost of Living transcript are pretty incriminating: [1] compared to [2]--it's a direct cut and paste, and when I asked you if you wrote it, you said you did, and accepted credit for a "hard work medal" for something you didn't do. I don't think any of us were particularly happy about you doing this, and now I have to msg Spooky to ask her to take off your name from the Lost-TV transcript as well. It's more this pattern of only editing lostpedia in order to get "credit" for stuff rather than anything constructive (a pattern that continues your determination to open empty spoiler pages despite us asking you not to on more than 5 or 6 occasions) that got you banned. --PandoraX 20:45, 4 March 2007 (PST)

• Should he really be banned for life? He's done quite a few good-faith edits. --Blueeagleislander 23:01, 4 March 2007 (PST)

• Please see his archived talk msgs; this is far more than just an isolated incident--it's a pattern that's continued for over half a year, and the reason why he's gotten shorter term bans and numerous warnings from other sysops. I had nothing against him personally and gave him the benefit of a doubt in the past. The plagiarism was just the final straw, but he was already on warning for the other issues and there was a consensus about this. --PandoraX 23:58, 4 March 2007 (PST)

• Hi blueeagleislander... that's a good question, and the answer Pandora gave is a good one. Sometimes it's not easy to see the whole picture, esp. with regard to disciplinary warnings and actions with another user. Nearly every active sysop has had an issue with this user over a long history. Most recently he was willfully and knowingly contradicting site policy with regard to spoilers despite repeated warnings and temporary bans; although the justification was listed (if I remember correctly) as ignorance, that no longer held up with multiple infractions that resulted in multiple warnings and bans. Some of his past interactions gave a clue; we have had multiple problems with this user with attribution issues; moving articles to make it seem as if he was the article's creator, creating largely contentless stub articles for the sake of creating them, and falsely attributing that he had created articles when he had not. This history, combined with the more recent spoiler article creation makes sense, as it seems he was acting possessively when other less experienced editors ended up creating articles for upcoming episodes (e.g. for characters, episode names, cast)-- in other words it seemed as if he wanted to create the articles first so he could take credit, despite explicit prohibitions to him and even temp bans applied to his account with regard to the same issue. In short the multiple transgressions were causing the sysops more work than was reasonable in the balance of his actual contributions recently. It was about crediting himself. The long history and consistent pattern of the abuse of rules (regarding personal credit) was finally topped off by plagiarism-- taking credit for what should be hours and hours of hard work in transcribing an episode, when in fact another sysop discovered that he had actually copied and pasted it off another site (lost hatch), even retaining that site's very unique formatting. It was very obvious, and the last straw in this pattern of abuse. In this last case we now have to go apologize to other partner Lost fan sites and ask for retractions of credit to him, when in fact we had previously given him the benefit of the doubt, and explicitly asked these other fansites to remember to credit him. His behavior reflects poorly on Lostpedia. He has been given many, many chances, and he has failed our faith in him every single time. It's now much less work for both parties if his "contributions" to Lostpedia comes to an end. It makes me sad as well, as I have had nothing against him, but hopefully this clarifies the issue a bit more. It is not capricious, arbitrary, nor a personal vendetta, and we had done everything we can to avoid this. The ball was in his court. -- ^C¯ _Santa_ ¯^T 00:25, 5 March 2007 (PST)

I agree with all comments by Santa and Pandora. Plaigerism will not be tolerated. SilvaStorm explicitly lied saying he'd done the transcripts and accepted a hardwork medal for it. He's given us a bad name on other fellow Lost sites, whom we usually get on very well with. Unfortunately, after many chances, I support the decision that we should no longer give concessions to someone who gives the site a poor reputation --Nickb123 (Talk) 12:13, 5 March 2007 (PST)