Talk: Rappy

[Template fetch failed for https://community.fandom.com/wiki/User:Rappy_4187/th?action=render: HTTP 404]

Hi there!

Welcome to the Vault!

Welcome to our Fallout wiki and thank you for your contributions! I hope you'll stay with us and make many more improvements.

A little help to get you started:

• Recent changes lets you see what other people are editing right this minute and where you can help. You can also check our community portal for things to do.
• If you haven't already, create a user page about yourself. If you do, we'll be able to know you better as a member of our community.
• If you have questions, you can ask in our forums, join the live chat in our IRC channel or post a message on my talk page.
• The help pages can help you learn how to edit and how use the wiki tools. The Vault's policies and guidelines can help you with putting those tools to good use and getting up to speed with our editing customs.

I'm glad to have you here and look forward to working with you!

-- Itachou (Talk) 01:29, June 20, 2010

VSTF

What is a Volunteer Spam Task Force? MS: Destiny conquers all. 20:28, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

See the VSTF page on Central. Rappy 20:44, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages

As per policy, you cannot erase messages on your talk page. I don't think your VSTF status exempts you from such a rule. SigmaDelta54 (Talk) 21:20, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

It was moved to the relevant talk page as per talk page etiquette. I prefer the conversations to be in one place rather than two or three. Also, please don't assume I did that because I think I am above the rules with my VSTF status. You are supposed to assume good faith. I am sure that's a policy here too. Rappy 21:26, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'll allow it (although I was oblivious to that). We typically respond on others' talk pages (what Great Mara did). But I guess this is acceptable too. My apologies for any inconvenience. SigmaDelta54 (Talk) 21:30, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough :) Rappy 21:34, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

SSS caps

To verify it, simply remove the tag. -- Bacon-Man ^{Talk to me goose!} 18:40, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

VSTF (2)

Also, what is VSTF? The page you linked to MS doesn't work. -- Bacon-Man ^{Talk to me goose!} 18:59, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the link. Rappy 19:06, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

A couple points:

• Removing talk-page content is against policy unless certain prerequisites are met.
• Edit-warring is against policy also. I would like to ask you not to do so again.

If you have further questions, let me know on my talk-page. Thank you and have a nice day. ^Skål! 18:58, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

A couple points to your couple of points.

• Edit-warring is considered multiple reverts. I reverted once. The first was an edit to move the info to Tocinoman's page.
• I wasn't removing content. I was moving it to a more relevant location. This is typically OK as far as content removal policies.
• My talk page header requests that messages that are started elsewhere continue there. It would be nice if I could actually adhere by my own request rather than getting slapped with policy when I do.

Replying on another user's talk page leaves disjointed messages across a wiki. If anyone else has any inclination to read up on the SSS cap issue above, they have to follow Tocinoman's talk page link to find out what the issue was originally. Otherwise, it's on one page and easy to follow. Notice that I am replying here rather than on your talk page. It's easier to follow this conversation if one were to find it here on my talk page. Rappy 19:06, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you any further than this reply. And I do expect you to abide by our rules afterwords.

• In our policies, it is dictated that you may not revert a previous revert without talking to the reverter first or asking for a mediator to step in and handle the situation more properly if needed. So don't play lawyer with me.
• You did indeed remove content as a consequence of you moving it.
• Replying on another person's talk-page is proper etiquette, as it alerts them to your reply or new thread. ^Skål! 19:11, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

First off, I am not playing lawyer. I am explaining my rationale. Secondly, this same action was allowed above making me think it was OK. Thirdly, edit-warring is considered to be 2-3 reverts of the same information. You came here accusing me of edit-warring when I had not. I moved the info once then explained the first revert in a comment. If I had of reverted after that, it would be considered edit-warring. I've been editing at wikis for close to 10 years. Replying on another person's talk page is not proper etiquette. It may be here (recently) at Wikia, but it is not elsewhere (See Wikipedia's talk pages) Every wiki I have ever been to reply's where the conversation is... not on the other person's page so they are notified. I'm not mad. I'm not upset. I'm not irate. So please don't read into my rebuttal as any of those. I am simply stating my case here. Rappy 19:20, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that you blatantly removed my previous post about the VSTF without telling anyone and didn't "move" it anywhere. It does not matter what you've done before at other places. Here at Nukapedia, we have our own rules. If you don't wish to abide by them, then you may leave. As long as you are staying here, however, you must obey them. On a side note, Wikia is a little under 8 years old. -- Bacon-Man ^{Talk to me goose!} 19:28, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing that, but there are still points in my above post that need addressing from you. -- Bacon-Man ^{Talk to me goose!} 19:30, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Please don't jump to conclusions. I didn't blatantly remove it. Apparently I edited an older version when viewing the diffs that I didn't realize it was lost. If you check revisions, you will see that I actually accidentally replied to the wrong comment when it was supposed to be on your VSTF section.

On a side note, Wikia is a little under 8 years old.

Yep, I know. I was here not too long after they got started. I was editing on other wiki farms and wikipedia since before then. :) Rappy 19:35, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘That's good, but being on Wikia/Wikicities/Wiki farms since the beginning doesn't pardon you from the rules of an individual wiki. -- Bacon-Man ^{Talk to me goose!} 19:38, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

True. I completely agree. Like I said, if you read above, this issue was already dealt with by SigmaDelta54, a sysop here, and was allowed. Hence my defensiveness when GarouxBloodline brought it up above. I assumed I was in the clear. I am not trying to bypass or be exempt from the rules here. If I was OK'd previously why would I do anything differently? From someone that just recently started editing here, the way I am approached about breaking a policy seems pretty strict. Admins are supposed to assume good faith. Saying stuff like "Don't lawyer me" or "you're free to leave" is really off-putting. Your goal as admins are to attract more users not deter them from editing. I've had no other issues here other than the talk page removal. My edits have all been good thus far.

As far as the policy, it would be nice if that policy was re-written to allow the moving of conversations in the same manner that archiving is allowed. Or even allow a Moved to Tocinoman's talk page under the header. This allows others to easily read the entire conversation without having to flip back and forth between 2 users talk pages to get the jist of the conversation.

My only question from here on out is, if someone replies on my talk page when I'd rather them not, I'd have to ask them to remove it instead? That would be a lot of talk page requests when I've already requested it at the top of my talk page in the first place. Again, I am not upset or mad so please don't read that into my comments here. I am simply trying to rationalize the situation and understand my options. Rappy 20:16, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

He is a new Admin, and this is a new policy, so he might not have entirely known what he was saying at the time. As for good faith, I have perfect faith in you. I just pointed out that removing anything from your talk-page is against policy and then you started arguing with me. You have to remember that your talk-page is not actually your property. It's the property of the community in the same way that an article's talk-page is. Also, other users are not allowed to remove content either. Anything on your talk-page needs to stay there for transparency. When your talk-page gets to a certain limit, you may archive it. ^Skål! 20:21, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

That may be true, but it makes it more difficult to get a reply as it won't notify the other user of having a message. -- Bacon-Man ^{Talk to me goose!} 20:19, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

All of these are good points. It generally boils down to how one wiki runs it from another wiki. As a new(er) user here (and a 'new' policy), I wouldn't be aware of all relevant policies. I apologize if I'd 'ruffled any feathers' as that was not my intention. I simply wanted to know the extent of the situation. As for the Moved to Tocinoman's talk page... would that be allowed? If not, could it be considered to write in to the policy. If it's an issue about transparency, all edits are recorded in the talk pages' history and will always be there unless revision deleted, so that shouldn't be that much of an issue. Rappy 20:41, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Can't speak for Toci, but nothing you said upset me in any way. :') As I said, I was merely pointing out your violations and then I pointed you towards my talk-page if you needed further expansion upon my reasons. As for your idea, it is absolutely within your rights to start up a forum/vote as an attempt to have your idea(s) implemented into our current policies. As for what I think about it, it holds merit in a ways. You would need to provide a link along with the template though. Not entirely sure why you wish to keep your talk-page clear though. Seems kind of vain to me, but what do I know? Let me know if you have any further questions. ^Skål! 20:45, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you could call a vote on it... But you're effectively asking us to rewrite the policy for one user, whereas everyone else is happy with just writing messages on the page of the person they want to talk to. I'd advise not rocking the boat. Agent c 20:47, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Don't get me wrong. You must understand that I'm just doing my job. In no way have you offended or annoyed me. I only ask that if you are ever banned or scolded for any reason, that the ban post/scold post stay on your talk page for administrative reference. -- Bacon-Man ^{Talk to me goose!} 20:50, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

@GarouxBloodline, it has nothing to do with vanity. In fact, I have no issues with this being here. This conversation started here. Logically, it makes more sense to have the full conversation in one place. Otherwise, it feels like a proverbial game of phone tag. :) I will look into calling for a vote on the policy change. Thanks for the debate guys. Rappy 20:53, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

If I may interject to clear up a few points. Firstly, "edit-warring is considered to be 2-3 reverts of the same information", this is an incorrect statement. It is generally considered that yes, when taken into an account of general wiki practise across most wikis. But some local wikis may vary on that view, so it cannot be considered that it is the same practise in all wikis. In our case, we consider a revert of a revert edit warring. So that general consideration does not apply here.

Also, the Wikipedia rational has no bearing here, we are not Wikipedia or any other wiki, we are Nukapedia, just like Canada isn't the USA or any other country. And as with visiting other countries, it is normally a good idea to follow local practises, etiquette, and laws. Which brings me to "Replying on another person's talk page is not proper etiquette." Here it is proper etiquette for such a practise and has been for over 7 years, regardless of how recently Wikia has taken on this practise in general. Hence why we did not have a talk back template until today.

I can understand you have your own way of doing things. The only solution I can offer that both satisfies your requirement and policy is to copy (but not remove) the response and continue the conversation there, while leaving a comment on your talkpage stating that the full conversation has been moved to said page. 21:25, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

That's doable. Thanks. Rappy 21:43, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Talkback template

Hello Rappy, I just added a talkback template to this wiki, feel free to use it from now on :) I was thinking about doing that for a long time now, and this whole incident finally pushed me to action. Toodles! Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 21:23, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

This, however, assumes that the norm is the way I suggested it above. {{talkback}} only works if people keep the conversation on one page and is used as a reminder to check on the conversation. Also, the 'talkback' norm is to remove the template once a reply has been made. According to policies here currently, that would be a break of policy to remove the template from your page once you've made a reply on the talk page in question. Rappy 21:45, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Not really, Wikipedia doesn't assume that as norm, and it works well there. Also, don't worry about the TP policy, removing the TB template is obviously exempt from that rule (I can't blame you for being wary though). Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 22:52, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Congrats

I see you have been promoted to full staff status? Congratulations if I am correct =) --Skire (talk) 20:32, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have. Thanks. =) Rappy 20:34, August 3, 2012 (UTC)