Talk:CTS/archive 7

Back to page | < User talk:CTS

7,370pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Add New Page
User talk:CTS

Archive 1 : Feb 17, 2008 - Jun 16, 2008 Archive 2 : Jun 16, 2008 - Aug 06, 2008 Archive 3 : Aug 06, 2008 - Nov 27, 2008 Archive 4 : Nov 28, 2008 - Jan 02, 2009 Archive 5 : Jan 05, 2009 - Jan 29, 2009 Archive 6 : Feb 01, 2009 - Mar 27, 2009 Archive 7 : Mar 28, 2009 - May 25, 2009 Archive 8 : May 30, 2009 - Nov 28, 2009 Archive 9 : Dec 20, 2009 - Apr 02, 2010

OthersCamp 3x20

Speculative Temple Logo

The Temple Logo on Ben's map is NOT clear, i've scoured the internet and found several examples of the symbol like this one to the left.

In fact, the only place I can find the logo similar to this one: Speculative Temple Logo, is on this wikia.--Roobydo 00:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The logo is not clear at all. Initially, I thought that the logo resembled more of an altar (like this one). But then I thought it looked more like "DHARMA" written at the bottom (like this one). However, after looking at a higher-def version of the screencap, I can understand where you would see the "altar" at the bottom. It's very hard to tell... -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 01:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, in that case, i think we should take both of them off any articles until we get a clear screencap.--Roobydo 11:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the best thing to do is have a vote. That way many users can voice their opinions of what the logo is. Right now I'm probably leaning towards it being the "altar" logo... -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 15:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
How do we do that? ive never put anything up to consensus and got more than a handful of votes. is there a way to browse issues?--Roobydo 18:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally think this is a flame, to indicate that the content of the can is flammable. A drop would be too abiguous, wouldn't it? I have never thought that it is a fuel drop. Compare it to the Flash logo - means "warning, high voltage". Fuel logo, in my opinion also means "warning". Unfortunately, it is not possible to get higher definition screencaps of the fuel can. --Kemot from Poland 17:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, vote is a good idea. --Kemot from Poland 17:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

the Game is not canon, so it doesn't really matter anyway.--Roobydo 00:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Capital "I"

Hey CTS. I noticed that you renamed the "Dead Is Dead" article. However, the press release (as well as proper grammar rules) show that the title does not have a capitalized "I." Is there some bit of naming policy I'm missing? -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  02:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Just checking. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  02:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
That's true. ABC probably couldn't care less. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  02:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, ok. If I knew that bit of precedent I would've ignored it. --Blueeagleislander 07:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


Hey you seem pretty knowladgeable about this site so I thought Id ask you for help. Ive been noticing some inconsistencies on this site in regards to centricity so I want to start a disscusion that would impact several pages how would I go about that so I could get everyones disscusion in the same place.

Heres the Articles it could impact: Dave, Libby, Centric tally, Character appearances, Man of Science, Man of Faith, Because You Left, A Tale of Two Cities, Juliet, Desmond, Daniel, and Pierre Chang.

Obviously thats quite a fewpages so i was hoping you could help me. thanks --Czygan84 17:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Episode numbering policy change

I've sandboxed a voting page here. Once we settle on it, we can move it to something like Lostpedia:Episode numbering policy change vote. How do you propose the voting decide the issue? If it is roughly 50/50 (to within +/- 5%, say) in favor of the policy change, does that warrant the policy change? Should we go by simple majority or have a stricter requirement? What should be the voting deadline?  Robert K S   tell me  20:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha, you found it before I even had a chance to send it to you.  Robert K S   tell me  20:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, just so you understand, that means that the voting in favor of the change will have to be 55 to 45 in order to pass. This will be true whether there are 100 votes or 1000 votes. Also please make sure the "arguments" sections are to your satisfaction (feel free to edit them directly) before we post this.  Robert K S   tell me  20:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Re:Exodus--that is an additional complication, isn't it? It doesn't solve the issue of bringing our episode numbers into conformity with the "100th episode". Which, at least for User:Pyramidhead, is the motivating force in all of this.  Robert K S   tell me 
Finally, can we also agree that leaving two-hour episodes intact as single articles, but giving them multiple episode numbers, is not a valid solution (1) for technical reasons, and (2) because it will not permit reference to all episodes by individual ep templates (and in the nav templates)? In other words, what we will be voting on is an all-or-nothing split, and not a halfway solution. I believe the all-or-nothing split is the one favored by User:Pyramidhead, who seems to be the most fervent proponent of the renumbering.  Robert K S   tell me  20:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

All righty, what's the next step with this thing? I've never done an all-site banner message before, is that in the CSS or something?  Robert K S   tell me  04:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguous article naming

I would post this on Talk:Skeletons (Further Instructions), but that page appears to have a glitch preventing me from editing it.

Descriptiveness of article title should trump this artificial consistency we've seen articles being renamed with recently. Using an episode title in an article title should be more of a measure of last resort. The key to article title naming is to give an article a title that permits ready identification of the article subject by its title alone, especially amongst a list of similarly-named article titles. Compare: Skeletons... what skeletons? Oh, the skeletons in the polar bear cave. Yeah, I remember those. Versus: Skeletons... what skeletons? The skeletons from "Further Instructions". Um... which episode was that? The episode where somebody got... instructions... umm...  Robert K S   tell me  07:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User Problem

Hey it seems there has been a problem with Ben he has been continuosly adding an UQ to hes our you despite a consensus being reached and whenever anyone tries to reach out to him and ask him to stop he usualy disregards everyone elses opinion in favor of his own feeling that no matter what he is right and we are all wrong not only that but throughout this he has continously bashed users which seems to be a trend of his as he has been warned in the past for refering to a user as a "jackass" and now has singled one user out as a vandal and refered to another as a "troll". Now I know im not the best at judgement as i have had some problems at times but this has gone on long enough he doesnt listen to anyones opinions and when people try to reacha resolution he insults them. He obviously respects no one on this site and thinks he can do whatever he wants. He has shown no regard for other users feeling continously insulting them, and disrespects authority going as far as deleting warnings from his talk page and stating several times that he shouldnt have to answer to anyone. I was hoping you could help. Thanks --Czygan84 14:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"The Enigma"

The Enigma has been recreated after being deleted. Maybe the user recreated it and wanted to copy and paste it all onto his sub-user page, I dunno. Also, User:XxSniper369xx recently made vanalism on the Boone Carlyle page. I simply reverted it and that was the user's only contribution. Just letting you know.--Mistertrouble189 23:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


Hey, I'd like to complain about users Czygan84 and Jimbo the tubby for being rude and offensive in their remarks against me on my discussion page and the talk page for He's Our You. They can't seem to keep comments civil. I know I have had the rare scuffle in the past over different topics, but I've always tried to be fair and just. I hope you can look into it. Thanks!--Ben 06:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Okay, this is getting out of hand. Ben, I have been nothing but nice to you, trying to have a legitimate debate with you on the UQ subject. I've been trying to help you understand what Lostpedia consensus considers to be a legitimate UQ, and to help point you in the right place where to discuss it if you think that that consensus needs to be changed. Yet every time I post something with good intentions, you get irrationally defensive, posting comments that put words in my mouth and accuse me of vandalizing Lostpedia. And yet you have the odacity to call me rude and offensive? I have been nothing but positive in anything I've written to you. In particular, I've never called you, say, a jackass or a troll. So, yeah, let's leave this to the mods, because I'll stand by everything I've written on your talk page or in the flaming bus debate. Maybe you need to learn not to take everything so personally and accept the notion that you can be wrong. I look forward to debating this issue further with you once you learn how to respond rationally to arguments against your own position. As you're so fond of saying after making a personal attack against other users, have a nice day. :)  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  07:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • While we're on the subject, striking out messages that other users have left on your talk page violates LP:GU because you're editing discussion posts which have been made by others.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  08:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to let you know CTS Ben left a little something out in his report and that is hes already complained about me for a previous disscusion which ive apologized for and been warned for so like i said above im not the guy to throw stones but I couldnt let his attacks go by especially after he berated me for my comment to him which was no where near as personal as his attacks. It would seem to me like he is intent on getting myself and jimbo banned as he has taken the fact that we dont agree with him personal and as it would seem will report to every sysop until we are. I just wanted to make sure you got all the info. --Czygan84 14:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Three things. 1) I think that Jimbo and Czygan have been trying to deal with this civilly, but Ben seems to take this as personal. Ben, if you don't agree with consensus, don't resort to personal attacks. Rather, start another civil/logical discussion about why you think you're right. 2) Do not erase or strikethrough any discussions on your talk page. This violates LP:GU and LP:POLICY. 3) Try to respect others users -- I believe Jimbo and Czygan are trying to talk with you in a civil manner, but personal attacks are not allowed under any circumstances. Any further attacks will definitely see bans in place. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 15:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

delete Portal:DHARMA Stations

Hi  CTS  Talk   Contribs . Could you please delete Portal:DHARMA Stations for me? It is the same thing as Portal:Mysterious. It should be merged with Portal:DHARMA Initiative also. Thanks.--DF3 my talk page my edits my identity 20:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--DF3 my talk page my edits my identity 02:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing Talk Page

CTS, I do believe it's against Lostpedia policy to edit my talk page, as I was already berated for doing so myself once before! But I guess you're a mod who can do as you please with no retribution. Either way, the problem has been resolved as I have created an archive to file away old arguments.

I guess the probability of justice being dealt out on this site is directly proportional to the amount of Mods or Admins any user knows. --Ben 12:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Episode

Since you didn't leave an edit summary, clue me in on your experiment... what were you trying to accomplish with the zero removal? I mean, it's kind of the point of that whole conditional expression, which was intended to allow single-digit episode numbers to be entered into the infobox without altering the category sort order. Although, apparently even this functionality wasn't working, although we don't exactly know why.  Robert K S   tell me  05:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see the discussion between me and User:Graft here and here. Either the reason for the strange episode category sorting should be addressed, the 0 in the infobox conditional should be restored, and the leading 0's should be removed from from the infobox on each page (preferable), or the whole conditional should be removed (not as preferable). Just removing the zero from the infobox may suffice as a quick fix, but what it actually does is add another layer of complication the problem.  Robert K S   tell me  02:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Christian Shephard

Hey, do you think Jack's undead father, Christian Shephard, should be on "List of Oceanic Flight 815 survivors"? I mean, he was dead to begin with and according to the producers, he's dead dead. So he didn't ressurect or anything. So he's not a survivor of the 815 crash. He was dead before and dead after That being said, I don't think he belongs on the List of 815 survivors page and I reverted the edit of him being added to the page but my revert was reverted. ...Or did he become ressurected?--Mistertrouble189 02:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Now that I think about it, maybe he did come back to life, but why stay away from Jack and the survivors in that one episode? (Jack chasing after Christian led to his empty coffin) And didnt the producers say those dead on the island is dead? However its possible he did come back to life. But for now its a theory and belongs on theories page. Best thing to do now is just mention the fact that his body was on 815 on the list article. Thanks for the revert and your agreement.--Mistertrouble189 03:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


I apologize. I didn't know. Would you like me to put everything back? <hiero>O34:O4-G17-D58-A1</hiero> zholmboe 01:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! If you ever need anything else like that again, fell free to leave me a message.-- Roobydo  talk  contribs  22:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Main Characters

Hey CTS theres a small problem going on with User:Fullmetalrollins and the main characters page he has been contniously adding Rose and Bernard despite the fact it was agreed that they dont belong in the talk pg not only that but there is a message in the text that specificaly says do not add rose and bernard however this user decided to delete that message and add them anyway I sent him a message letting him know why i reverted his edits but he obviously doesnt care what i have to say because he made the same edits again after i sent the message I know hes new so maybee he doesnt get it but deleting and ignoring text and disregarding my message is a little much, I was hoping a message from a sysop or something would get him to stop making these edits in the future. thanks --Czygan84 03:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

  • just thought id add on his talk page he replied calling me an idiot. and also i found it interesting that jimbo had the same exact problem minutes later with a diffrent user who was just banned im not sure but after looking at the edits made by both users i found it interesting that they both put Rose and Bernards appearances at 59 which is incorrect and also moved eko above AL, so its either a big coincidence or its the same guy. --Czygan84 20:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No problem and thank you. --Czygan84 02:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Main Characters

User:Addicted2lost keeps removing Nikki and Paulo from and adding Rose and Bernard to Portal:Main Characters. I have reverted his edits to this portal several times giving an explanation, as well as leaving a message on his talk page. So far he has ignored all of them and continues to make the same edit. Thought I'd let someone know since he's refusing to talk about it. Thanks.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  05:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

He also just went and removed all the content from my user page. He's obviously here for no purpose other than vandalism.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  05:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo left a message on my talk page, too. After investigating the user's vandalism of Jimbo's user page, I gave a 1 month ban.  Robert K S   tell me  05:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving information?

Hey CTS, I'm sure you know that, like many of the theories pages, the Four-toed statue/Theories page is a mess. Furthermore, like many of the the other theories pages, it has degenerated into a discussion forum. As such, I set out this morning to remake it with the following goals: 1) Remove disproven theories (e.g. the statue is from the future, the statue is a goddess) 2) Get rid of material that should be on the discussion page. 3) Sort the information into reasonable groupings. 4) Try to preserve all the other information. I am quite proud of the end result, but didn't want to impliment it until I checked with you about proper procedure. Essentially, the page was so big that once I organized the information I realized it was unmanageable. So what I did was create sub-pages for the main topics of theorizing. Four-toed statue/Theories/Origin, Four-toed statue/Theories/Identity, Four-toed statue/Theories/Destruction, Four-toed statue/Theories/Meaning, and Four-toed statue/Theories/Miscellaneous. If you take a look at them, I think you'll agree they are vastly improved (though, as with most things, they are still a work in progress). My thought/plan was to turn the main theories page into a disambiguation for each of those sub-pages. Is that the same as "renaming" so an admin needs to do it? Is that something I can do, or do you need to do something? Thanks a ton £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 23:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I think the page looks pretty good. £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 03:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


As much as I find this quite a funny addition, it needs to go: The Shroom. Two different users are adding stuff about it to multiple articles. My main concern is though, they're both new accounts. I thought the site was semi-protected so users can't edit unless they're 3 weeks old. How are they able to edit? I think it needs looking into.--Baker1000 23:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


Hey CTS,

found a blog post that seems to contain some major spoilers in it. Please try not to read it, just delete this blog post if possible. I'm not aware if this is true, but if so, I think I'm gonna kick that guy's ass… Hope you know that you can trust me with that, so you won't get spoiled by reading it to confirm my doubts.
Thanks, --DerAndre (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks DerAndre, it has been deleted. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 22:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


Hey, alright so theres a DHARMA Initiative extra woman named Fern. But there's two DI "Ferns" now, the dead Fern we saw in S3 (the Purge) and then the Fern that helped out Amy/Dr. Chang in S5. Check out her page. Should there be two different Fern pages since they're two different women?--Mistertrouble189 22:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that would work out. The dead Fern only appeared in the DVD and the S5 Fern has appeared more times throughout the shoe. Works for me! I'll make the pages and you could turn the existing Fern into a disambig?--Mistertrouble189 22:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm..same with Casey. Different actress. Do you think they're simply reusing DHARMA outfits from Season 3? Probs make a Casey (Season 3) and a Casey (Season 5)?--Mistertrouble189 02:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Kahana vs. Freighter

Hm...that's true. Perhaps Kahana crew would be a better name for them. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  16:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it was a stupid mistake on my part. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  16:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


Hey CTS, I was just hoping I could get your input. I was really offended today when I saw that there is an supposed literary technique of "Mindf*ck". I believe profanity like this detracts from any legitimacy within an article, does not add anything to the wiki, and if it offends me (who am certainly no stickler about swearing), it must offend other people. I tried to find a pre-existing LP policy but couldn't find one. As such, I tried to think of what could solve the problem. I figured that no one would go for a blanket ban on profanity, and so suggested the wikipedia idea, hoping that it would allow enough legitimate exceptions that people who felt very strongly about allowing it in limited instances would feel appeased. That said, as you stated in your response on the ideas page, profanity really has no place in a wiki like this. I totally agree, and I would be delighted to support a blanket ban, but feel that until there is at least some policy, that addresses this, that we won't be able to do anything about stuff like Mindf*ck. Can you think of a stricter policy than the one I suggested that would be good? Do you think it would be worth suggesting a blanket ban on the ideas page? My only concern would be doing nothing about this at all. I want to suggest something people can agree to that would reasonably deal with things like this. Any ideas? £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 02:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I really agree with what you said about the rationale for this technique; I think that this is one of those situations where a few people are very excited about how "edgy" it is to swear (or almost swear), when, in reality, their academic case is wishful at best. It is a literary technique unrecognized by the canon of literary experts, and can be explained in other ways. If all it is, as they say on its page, is an "internal paradigm shift", then why not just call it a "paradigm shift"? Rhetorical answer: because they think it's cool, and don't realize that it is entirely unprofessional. I think that my remaining frustrations are: 1) The GoogleAd stuff only says that "excessive profanity" is prohibited; but I'm left wondering, "How much is excessive?" 2) Who are we kidding to think that the bowlderized version is any better (as if some kid who knows the whole word will somehow not realize what the asterisk-augmented version means). 3) I feel like this is the first time in my experience on LP that I have felt like there are no proper channels for dealing with something that seems so obviously wrong to me. I feel like there needs to be a next step. Something that made the policy more specific, a policy about bowlderized language, or even simply a reasonable person standard. I don't know, I appreciate your ear, and knowing that I'm not the only one who thinks it is not appropriate. £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 22:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

rename request

Hi, could you rename prison clerk to Winter as his nametag showed his name. Thanks.--Mistertrouble189 18:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


Is it vandalism? It looks like a query result, but...[1]--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


I consider being called a "douche" on my talk page by User:Dposse to be a PA.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting episode titles ban + Old spoilers discussion

Hello. So, a while back, there was a decision made to ban all episode titles from the wiki with the exception of the immediately upcoming title. As far as I can tell, this decision was made in the topic Lostpedia talk:Spoiler Policy/Archive 02#Titles are spoilers! (redux) and was made because there was no way to create a collapsible Nav template for the episodes. As you may have seen, users were recently able to create such a template. As such, the original justification no longer applies, so I've reoppened the discussion here. If it's not too much trouble, I would like to get all the SysOps to weigh in on this publicly, as I feel previous spoiler policy discussions have been ignored and/or avoided by SysOps from time to time (particularly [[this one where there was a user consensus to set aside a page for officially released content from the producers, similar to the old "/Spoilers" pages, but used only for official content, which was never heard about again, despite a 100% consensus in the discussion.) At any rate, it would be great to have you all weigh in since I think this is an extremely important issue for Lostpedia that we have resolved, given the original reasoning behind it. Thanks.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  07:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Lost season 4 navbox

Hi, I need some admin assistance. I notice that the season four navigation box is missing "There's No Place Like Home, Parts 2 & 3". I can't edit it for some reason, but since you're an admin, maybe you could add the episode on the box for me. Thanks. -- Matthew R Dunn 17:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


  • Thanks for renaming the articles I nominated, so fast. --Orhan94 18:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


Check out the Esau talk page, where there's been a debate on whether or not it should redirect to Jacob's nemesis. I may have come up with a compromise you'll like. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  14:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki