From LOST

Hello,

I'm glad you are as enthusiastic about Lost as I am, I know we're not the only ones, but it's always great to meet a fellow fan. I appreciate your support of my wiki. Currently, I've written approximately 230 articles on this site, and am just now approaching completing the Main Character Bios (I've done a few), and then finishing up the Episode Summaries. Thursday, I'll be working to upload information on "The 23rd Psalm", Mr. Eko's backstory, and info on all of the characters set to appear in it; so be sure to check that out on Thurdsay.

Again, Thanks for your support, and I hope you return for more Lost information, and I hope you'll be satisfied when my compiling of info is complete.....well, that is until the next new episode, I'll always have that to look forward too, ha ha ha.

See you in another life, yeah? :p

Contents 1 Mysteries of Lost 2 My userpage 3 New Episode 4 Yo 5 Glyphs 6 Further Instructions 7 Concerns about Wikipedia 8 What a mess. 9 Glyphs 10 TOR

[edit] Mysteries of Lost

I'll be adding a "Mysteries of Season 1" and "Mystery of Season 2" section to the front page in a few days. As for the article on the numbers, I think a good title would be "The Numbers".

[edit] My userpage

I don't really want a userpage, not just yet, not until I have time to really make it good. Thanks for the reminder though. I'll get right on it. ;) --ChristianShephard 03:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Episode

No. I taped it, but I was at a board meeting this evening. So I didn't get home until it was more than half-way over. I'm looking forward to it, but I'll need to stay away from this Wikia for a day or two until I can watch it. I don't want to see a spoiler first. :-)
Tomorrow night I'm going to a showing of An Inconvenient Truth, so I probably won't see the episode until this weekend. ...antici..pa..a..tion... (can you hear the old ketchup jingle?)
I shouldn't even be staying up "wikiing", but I got started... silly me. --CocoaZen 03:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Yes, it looks like this will be a good season. (Finally had a chance to watch the tape today.)

On the other topic, I added a page to the Film Guide Wikia on An Inconvenient Truth and now I'm trying to figure out the best ways to write on the related topic of Global Warming. I hope to eventually add something to SCA and Campaigns...

Looking forward to next Wednesday! --CocoaZen 20:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jimbo, welcome to Lostpedia. I'm sure we can find some good relationships between Lost Wikia and Lostpedia, especially as ABC have decided to launch their own wiki now, which really rides rough shot on the hard work done by both our wikis. Also, is there any chance you can find out why we cannot get any kind of reference to Lostpedia on Wikipedia? --90.192.92.41 01:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC) (plkrtn on Lostpedia)

To avoid conflict of interest issues, I try to never comment on editorial matters regarding external links to Wikia or other wikis. I don't know if ABC's lost wiki will be successful, as I doubt very much if they have much of a clue as to how to run a wiki. :) But of course they will be able to drive a lot of fan traffic to it.----Jimbo Wales 01:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

And then in theory, to our Wiki's as long as we make sure we have lots of linkage within their wiki, as theres are bereft of content --217.65.158.119 11:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC) (plkrtn on Lostpedia)

[edit] Yo

Question, if your a founder of Wikipedia, isnt there something you can do to keep the Lostpedia, and Lost Wikia pages on Wikipedia? They keep getting deleted. Im on Lost pedia as Onelastword . Thanks!

[edit] Glyphs

Don't worry, it's a work in progress, I'm going to create a page sometime today or tomorrow. Those 70 pages I created were pretty daunting, and I'm still reeling :p. But, I assure you, and explanation will come. --Scott?steve? 13:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further Instructions

Hi, we really shouldn't include the press releases of future episodes, or even have pages for future episodes, because it violates the spoiler policy of the wiki. Christian has set a rule stating that no information on unaired episodes is to be included in the wiki. You could bring this up with him, so until then, I'll leave the press release and page. --JackAttack 18:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from posting spoilers for episodes that have yet to air. Please read the Spoiler Policy for more information. --ChristianShephard 19:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

But are the press releases for upcoming essay really spoilers? I don't think so, they don't really have spoiler information in them... I will read the spoiler policy.----Jimbo Wales 13:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns about Wikipedia

Hi Jimbo. I have some serious concerns about Lostpedia, Wikipedia, and in particular the allowance of articles that I would like to raise your attention to.

For a while now, we have been trying to get an article on the Lostpedia onto Wikipedia, as we feel that our site is notable enough to have its own article, as we were part of the ABC Lost Experience, mentioned on the podcasts and glyphs, as well as having articles written about by USA Today, The Guardian UK Newspaper and being SciFi.com site of the week.

However, there seems to be a serious issue with some of the editors trying to deny us access to be included upon the site. A clique of editors has formed that won't allow us either a link on the LOST article, or our own entry on Lostpedia.

We think, quite rightly too, that sites like Wookieepedia, and Memory Alpha have articles, so why shouldn't Lostpedia, or for that matter the LOST Wiki?

So we have included ourselves several times, only to be deleted quite quickly. Now, while I don't have a problem with Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia existing on Wikipedia, I think that the policies of not being a web site directory or advertising service should apply to all wikis and not one rule for some, and one for others. That is an inconsistent application of the rules.

For example, yesterday we created a Lostpedia article, and it was immediately deleted by a user, MatthewFenton, a known Lostpedia vandal, and editor of the Memory Alpha wiki article. How can a user who willing edits an article on a Star Trek wiki, then object to a LOST wiki having its own article? The argument currently is that the site is full of "fancruft". If this is the case, why do Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica get articles? These are both full of content with absolutely no facts in whatsoever.

LOST by its nature generates lots of theory, and we choose to embrace it, while still clearly defining them as theories. We create discussion and talking points, which are tightly policed not only by admins but by an enthusiastic user base of editors that want to see the content as accurate as possible. I don't believe its the right of Wikipedia or its users to enforce an editorial policy on a site in order to get the recognition it deserves. Its almost as if the sysops who patrol the LOST article are trying to make us enforce Wikipedia's editorial policy if we wish to be included on Wikipedia.

The further argument that exists is the idea that Memory Alpha is notable, primarily because of its ranking on Alexa.com (25,000 ish) [1] and the fact that some of the writers of Star Trek use it.

Our argument in return was that our Alexa.com ranking was 16,000 [2] not to mention that Alexa.com has already been rejected as an idicator of notability. We also argue that we have been part of the interactive LOST Experience game, also garnering a mention on the DJ Dan podcast [3] (The character, played by Javier Marxauch, a writer of LOST) complaining that we called him fictional. Of course, we were also SciFi.com's site of the week for the week beginning 5th July 2006. This, something Memory Alpha hasn't achieved, is also not considered to prove our notability.

Futhermore, while trying to include our site as a link on the main LOST article, we are told that Wikipedia doesn't allow links to fan sites on articles. We know that this is not the case. The Prisoner, The Simpsons, Star Trek and The X-Files have links to fan sites on their main articles.

All we are asking for is a bit of consistency on this issue. Rules should apply across the board for all of these sites that are fansites, based on Cult TV shows. Either everyone should follow the no fanwiki articles, and no links to fan sites, or no one should. I ask you because we get silenced whenever we try and argue what is a fair and reasonable argument with Wikipedia admins that patrol the Lost articles. We just want fair rights and access to be able to post an article about our incredibly popular site. We do not see any reason why some editors should play by one set of rules, and some by others. There is not only a lack of consistency that harms wikipedia, it harms interwiki relationships which we have tried to establish.

Basically Jimmy, all I am asking for is an even handed approach to the rules, and as I can't seem to get through to the, frankly overzealous editors on Wikipedia, I thought it best to outline our issues to the man in charge. I do not see any reason why this wiki or Lostpedia shouldn't get an article on Wikipedia, if Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia are allowed one. The link issue is a far bigger issue than just Lostpedia too. There is a serious inconsistency in policy that really needs addressing. If you cannot address these issues, can you please help us address our worries and concerns to the right people. --217.65.158.91 11:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC) plkrtn on Lostpedia.

Evidence of support: Reasons for non-deletion for Wookieepedia Matthew Fenton Contributions Lost article on Inclusion of fansites (debate)

--217.65.158.91 12:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC) plkrtn on Lostpedia

Wow, well, I looked into it, and read in particular the entire debate at that last url you sent me. What a mess. As you may know, I try not to personally get involved much in detailed content disputes, and in this case, I really don't know enough about tv show linking policies as they are put into practice to know for sure about that. At the same time, I do think that Lostpedia should be listed there, and that in general Wikipedia should do a lot more linking to community-built resources.

Anyway, in the meantime, I think we should work together at lost.wikia and lostpedia because of the issue of the new "official" wiki which is going to potentially confuse a lot of new users. I think users there need to understand that the ABC terms of service mean that everything people do there belongs to ABC, unlike our two sites, where the licensing terms mean that the community can leave if the host is not a good host. People writing at the official site have no right to take their own work elsewhere later on. :(

Should we pursue a general discussion about increasing the links between lost.wikia and lostpedia?----Jimbo Wales 21:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see there being a problem with increasing the links between Lostpedia and Lost.wikia. What would you have in mind regarding this? --90.192.92.101 00:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a good first step would be to get Lostpedia and lost.wikia added in the interwiki tables. Is there a global table that our Admin can subscribe and be added to? It would be much easier to link with [[LP:The Swan|The Swan]] than using external links. --Jabrwocky7 04:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that what they call "being a vandal." is actually good faith edits attempting to give credit where its due and have correctly licensed images (e.g: Contribs @ Lostpedia - you will notice i was even bold and did a bit of work at establishing a fair use template.) - another example, this time a GFDL image is taken from wikipedia with no credit to its original author or stating its GFDL, anyway this is not the problem - a consensus among editors is that un-official links should not be placed within articles, it does not help however that "Lostpedian SysOps" are intent on getting a link on Wikipedia, even creating an article for a fan site link respository which is now up for AfD (see wikipedia:Lost further reading) - Then also violating WP:POINT by attempting to speedy the Memory Alpha once, AfD it once incorrectly, PROD it twice and then finally succesfully AfD it correctly which was snowballed very quickly due to being in bad faith.

There is also a pretty lengthy discussion at wikipedia:Talk:Lost (TV series)/Fansites - the majority being Lostpedians directed here - Now the question to be raised here is: a) If teh doors are open to 1 external links then why not 2 and it will keep on going because thereare many Lost fan sites, then the problem is whos fansite goes in the article, there are so many Lost fansites (some more notable then Lostpedia) and then theres also two known wikis, if one wiki link was allowed why not the other? - There is a simple answer though, only relevant and official links should be used, this equates to no spam and a good stable article.

If you'd like any ore information feel free to message me at wikipedia:User_talk:MatthewFenton. (Note that lostpedia has also been DRV'd once before and deleted several times at wikipedia and is currently undergoing a 2nd DRV) MatthewFenton 22:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The criticisms regarding the licensing of images have been addressed, and if you visit your contributions page, that you so kindly link to, its pretty obvious that instead of working with us to improve the site, you decided to be abusive towards the users there. Several people have commented on your general attitude, and on the legal situation on your talk page. Your condecending comment on the "Lostpedia SysOps" just shows your general distain for the site rather than being co-operative. Lostpedia are operating consistently by banning you for your bad faith edits, and general poor attitude. --90.192.92.101 00:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What a mess.

Jimbo? Is that really you? I'm guessing your account name is genuine. Someone linked to this page from the Lost/Fansites discussion page. I just wanted to say I don't much read Lostpedia, and I'm not even so much of a Lost fan. I just got a hair across my thingie over the way the Lost article was being mis-guarded. I don't expect you to get involved on this, it's just nice to know that my talk page efforts are being read by more than just the Lost cabal. At least I'm having fun! Gotta go. --Loqi T. from Wikipedia. 10:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, would just like to make you aware that Lostpedia's Wikipedia article has now gone to a second afd. [4]. Thank you. --90.192.92.161 18:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC) (plkrtn on Lostpedia)

Lostpedia's second AfD at Wikipedia has cleared with a keep. [5] Now, I'm done with this whole thing. It's gone from civil to bitter back to civil. Now It's time to move on. My final thoughts will be up on my user page for a while. [6] --Loqi T. from Wikipedia. 19:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glyphs

HI, I've finally finished the great organization of the glyph pages for The Lost Experience, so if you'd like to check them out, I'd greatly appreciate your opinion.

• Sri Lanka Video and Glyphs

-Scott?steve? 02:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TOR

• Hello Jimbo. Lately over on Lostpedia, we've been having some problems with Onion Routers using TOR. Since I am sure that you have this problem on Wikipedia, I was wondering how you guys take care of it. Do yuo ban the account and then automatically ban all of the IPs used? Or do you guys have a special way to get back. I saw this page on wikipedia: [7] but couldn't figure out if tere was another way. If you have any suggestions, please get back to me on my Lostpedia talk page. Thanks! --67.190.13.240 16:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC) (Marik7772003 on Lostpedia)