Talk: 69.l25

Archives: #1, #2, #3, #4

Talk page deletion

Why did you remove that talk page message after I specifically left a note asking for more info to see if this was a bug that might need consideration for placement on the page? The Gunny   21:29, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you mean that he did not specifically mean the "reloading bench", rather than what he termed "workbench", and based on that, you mean it should not be on the reloading bench page? Is that correct? I was assuming good faith that he left it on that page with the correct intent to mean "reloading bench" even though he worded it "workbench". The Gunny   21:44, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

Considering our "assume good faith" guideline, would it not have been a better course of action to allow the user to elaborate on this possible bug before we determine that his comment violated the talk page guideline? The Gunny   22:06, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

Talk page deletions

69, I understand that the constant article talk page removals are "following policy", but some of these removals are extremely questionable. An example is Talk:Smiling Jack, where you removed 6 years worth of TP messages, some of which still fall under TP policy. People bringing up potential bugs is not against policy as it can potentially add something to the article (that's actually the reason I made an account on Wikia; see Talk:Lily Bowen). The same can be said for a user discussing a possible behind the scenes reference for the subject of the article. We can't just go blanking messages without proper cause.

You obviously can't do this for messages from 2008, but if you are going to remove recent TP messages, could you at least leave the OP a message explaining why their message was removed? Erasing it and pretending it never happened doesn't solve anything. I appreciate the work you're putting into the wiki, and I only want to see it improve and become as constructive as possible. Thanks. _{Into the wild blue yonder...} 04:16, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

The policy was never intended for mass deletion. I myself take issue with the fact that the most recent entry you removed was perfectly valid. It pertained completely to the article in question, but even if it didn't, blanking it with no explanation to the user who posted it is just plain rude. Who knows? That guy could've become the next Jspoel, and maybe now he'll never come back.  A Follower  Talk  04:29, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

69, I have to agree with Toci. There seemed to be a lot of things removed that werent just general talk. People looking at the possibility the subject is based on other things, etc.

I admire your passion, but you need to chill out. Your zeal is putting people off and harming both you, and perhaps even the wiki. I think you need to consider more both if removing these items from talk pages is constructive, and how you converse with your fellow editors. Agent c (talk) 04:32, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Ignore the structure, and look at the content instead. Look at the message the user is trying to send you. Agent c (talk) 04:39, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, personal anecdotes? What do you expect? It's a game, how else do we get content? Secondly, yes, between Toci, Chad, and Gunny.  A Follower  Talk  04:40, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

How do you think we got 90% of our bugs? Abnormal personal experiences. IF people don't report on their personal findings, how do you expect we get content? Solely through sourcing the GECK? Well, that's gonna make a boatload of work for a couple people who have advanced skills with it. This wiki was built on personal experiences, verified over time by repetition.  A Follower  Talk  04:46, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

“Talk pages are for the discussion of their respective articles and not for general chatter. Use the forum for the latter. Posts that do not pertain to discussion of an article itself may be deleted regardless of their time of posting.”— User conduct guideline

“This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the page "Smiling Jack." It is not the place for general discussion or sharing stories about the topic of this article. Please use our forum for these purposes.”— Talk page template

69, I am well aware of the wiki's policies, but thank you for making sure. Many of the posts on Talk:Smiling Jack are, indeed within policy. If you insist that I show you the posts on the page that are within policy, then so be it.

“I believe this guy is an homage to Smiling Jack from the PC RPG, Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines. Same names but could just be a coincidence.”— 71.105.192.83

This post raises the same point as the one that was posted no more than an hour ago. While it hardly made a case as effective as the most recent post, it still raises an eye to a possible reference. With more background information on this, we could contact game devs and ask them to verify this speculation, which can lead to information being added to the article.

“It's highly likely Smiling Jack is a reference to Smiling Jack from Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines. Besides sharing the same name and both having a jovial disposition, Smiling Jack warns the player in VTMB to 'watch out for shotguns' as they are more volatile to vampires than most guns. 'The Terrible Shotgun' is likely a reference to this interaction.”— 75.109.74.191

This post brings up the same reference as before, and it provides the background for the possible reference. We could use this information to contact devs.

You also saved one of the other posts about the article not containing anything about what he sells (it was a few years ago, so it's obviously outdated, but still).

I am only trying to help here. Killing TP discussions before they can grow drives users away from the wiki, which is precisely what we are trying to avoid. _{Into the wild blue yonder...} 04:53, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

You're ideas are good in theory, but you are completely ignoring practical applications of them. Not every user is as confident with wikia editing as you and I, perhaps they feel more confident in a less formal setting, and can you blame them? Regardless, even if what you just wrote to me applied, it is your responsibility to apply it and explain to the user what they did wrong and that the proper course of action is. Blanking and ignoring does nothing, and gives off a bad impression. And I for one will not let you or anyone make our wiki seem like an unwelcome one. We as extra-rights users are here to help guide new users and anons, regardless of whether or not it's officially part of our position or not. It's something we do, and while your ideas have a sound theory, you are not employing them in a proper way.  A Follower  Talk  05:02, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Look, I'm going to have to step in as a 'crat here. You need to focus less on the form and instead address the content. it doesn't matter what it "encourages", if people suggest a possible bug or reference as an anecdote, its a potential page improvement even if it is in a conversation style- even if its debunked as we can use it as evidence that it isn't that later. Strategy stuff, feel free to zap into the either, but if a potential factual issue is raised, let it stand. Agent c (talk) 05:04, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

I've seen your message on Toci's page. I'd advise you to just take a break for now. Come at it with a clean mind tomorrow. Agent c (talk) 05:44, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Hello, 69.l25. You have new messages at Limmiegirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bugs

Please refrain from removing content from talk pages having anything to do with bugs, this includes questions about the status of something as a bug/possible workarounds/possible fixes/etc. ---bleep196- (talk) 23:58, January 29, 2014 (UTC)

That seems reasonable enough, and I'm assuming the admin you cleared it through Limmie since she is the one who answered that question. I will remov the question again, as per your request. However, bear in mind that I pay very close attention to all matters having to do with bugs as I have pioneered many of the policies regarding them. I would like to suggest in the future that before you remove something to do with a bug on a tp that you clear it with me first, as anything on the tp's having to do with them is considered discussion of improving the article. ---bleep196- (talk) 00:27, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

Forum

I don't think its particularly required, but you can if you really want to. I think I've seen enough peoples reaction on removal now on the wiki, in chat, and in private to be confident that your removals are against the consensus view. Agent c (talk) 00:22, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

Its not that one incident (of which I haven't actually seen). Its the other repeated incidents. Look, we've got chat, we've got a previous vote and forum, and we've got the private communications. You may feel its a witch hunt, but I think the communities view is clear and on the record. Agent c (talk) 00:30, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily because of you. I read all the talk page messages before I made that more visible. It seems everything got straightened out today. I changed that because I wanted to make sure that anyone reading that in the future understood the importance I placed on it. Emphasis on everyone.and future. (plus, I've been having fun with html lately. Call it a dirty little secret:P) The Gunny   01:30, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

Roger. Will do. The Gunny   02:21, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

A (late) Holiday Gift

You have been given a recharger pistol. Your efforts and diligence have not gone unnoticed, and you have been given a small token of appreciation. Merry Christmas and a happy new year, I know i may be a bit late, but had exams then and decided to delay my wishes a bit. If it's too late for you, then consider it a Chinese new year ;) Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 10:30, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

Votes

One was public. Others have been in communication with us directly/discretely. Agent c (talk) 22:23, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, those people chose to contact us in a non public fashion because they wanted their names left out of it. Agent c (talk) 22:33, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

We're not doing "private votes" at all, but we can't ignore that we were contacted multiple times either. It is just one factor in our decision, and yes, they did tell us that.

I'm sorry you're not happy with it, but I think its clear you don't have community support to take on the role of admin at this time. Agent c (talk) 22:44, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

No, Im not going to give you their names. They've been in touch privately because they want that communication to be private. If they wanted it public, they would have taken the extraordinary action Toci did. Agent c (talk) 23:04, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

Let me clear this up. We came to a unanimous decision about your request before factoring in anything the numerous people said to us, either publicly or privately, about their change of support for you. The fact that many people voiced a change of support simply validated our decision, it did not make it for us. Their change of support, to me, was important though, and in the future, we'll take into consideration whatever we deem necessary to make these decisions. The Gunny   23:24, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

Userpage

I hope you won't do anything with what you just posted on your userpage. Better remove it I think, people won't be pleased to see it there. You've been declined adminship at this point and you've discovered how some people feel about you. It's hard, but you can also see it as a challenge. A lot of room for improvement, which you can work on in the coming 2 months or so. Shift your focus on what people think about you and build confidence doing what you do best, editing. In the meantime you can also work on your communication skills. Let this go now and start anew is my advice. Jspoel 00:01, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but putting it on your userpage won't make the people like you better, on the contrary. Goal is to build trust and respect among the community and you need to do that by working on the content and improving your communication with others. You clearly are going about it the wrong way now and are putting people off even more. Just remove it, forget the past, and make a new start with the feedback from your request. Jspoel 00:21, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

(←)  Let me be blunt. By posting that there you've now caused us a lot of problems. We suspected some people were misusing the log as some sort of secret police rather than a chat investigation tool. By posting that on your user page, you've now put that straight in our face. We're now left with the position that we are now forced to take down the log bot because we know that you and others are misusing it.

You're going to have to get used to a few things. Firstly, people bitch, complain, moan and gossip about people - friends and foe alike. This is normal human behaviour, and you're just going to have to get used to it. This isn't a wiki thing, but life.

Second, perhaps rather than post that there you should instead reflect on what people were saying. "he comes off as an arrogant ass.", "he just comes off as arrogant." "he's been annoying me lately" " He's been nothing but arrogant this entire time". These are the critiques on your behaviour you seem to want. Rather than take them as proof of some persecution, take them as feedback. How you are percieved is based on how you act. How you act is solely in your power. Agent c (talk) 00:14, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

To answer your question... You. It makes you look both bitter, and like an ass. Agent c (talk) 00:43, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

I've lead your to water. Its your decision if you want to drink or not; right now you're proving them right. Agent c (talk) 00:53, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to bed. There's an email link on my talk page if you wish to send me something privately. Agent c (talk) 02:43, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't "not like" you. What I don't like is certain behaviours you've chased to show. I've tried to help you as you can see above and you chose to rebut that. Whether I am a bureaucrat or not does not affect whether or not I can publicly have an opinion on someones behaviour. As for out of line comments... You're darned lucky I chose to overlook a lot of yours. I find it highly hypocritical of you complaining of pot stirring when you've doing it yourself. Agent c (talk) 21:14, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

I See however that you've chosen to abuse the logs again. Care to explain why as a special rights user you believe that you are above the rule that says not to use it for that reason? Agent c (talk) 21:20, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

How have you stirred it up? lets see, you continue to use the chat logs in ways that are not condoned by policy. You had your snarkry yes vote for follower, you had your worse no vote there now, you've had your inappropriate message to limmie, and you have your user page full of perceived slights and grudges.

Quite Frankly, as a patroller that user page is definitely not appropriate. It is not the kind of thing that a user looking for help who may go to you as a special rights user should see... I could go on with the other stuff, but thats really the worst of it.

If you don't like the way people are reacting to you, look inside yourself and ask "Am I doing anything that might have inspired this?" Agent c (talk) 21:24, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Hi

You don't really know me as I don't get on here an awful lot but I am aware of the controversy you have been causing through my reading of things.

I haven't contributed to the votes recently due to my lack of interation with people such as yourself, but I thought it might be an idea for me just to send you a litle message on what I have seen (unlike others I know how to be tactful).

Your views are very strong, and there is nothing wrong with that, but you don't seem to like people disagreeing with you. You have been called arrogant and there are reasons for that - you do tend to think it is your way or the highway from what I have seen. Also, from the comments on KCs no confidence vote, you came across really aggressive; it was almost like you wanted to personally attack Clyde (your comments were really harsh at times).

With regards the chat log that is currently sitting on your front page - I really do understand that you are angry about what people are saying, however it really is better to address it directly and calmly. People will respect you more for it, and believe me respect gets you far here. I've only really had a problem with one user and that was never a secret. But I duked it out with him and, whilst we weren't exactly friends, we became more civil with each other.

Putting things like the log on your page really isn't the way to go, especially if you do wish to run for admin again. As I said, I've not really interacted with you but from what I have seen I would vote no. Administrators have to not only be dedicated but also be respected and trusted - what you have done with the chat log doesn't satisfy either criteria. You also have to learn how to take criticism without getting too irate about it. A good leader needs to be able to lead by example - and the chat log thing and your my way only attitude doesn't inspire that.

You are a great editor, there is no denying that, but - as the overused expression goes - with great power comes great responsibility. You need to be able to interact with the great masses of the wiki. Just try not to take things to heart so much - we have all been there and done that. You just need to understand that diplomacy comes with the territory, and that includes the way you interact with others.

Don't let it get you down, and please don't bring about your downfall by letting shit get under your skin. Rise above it - else how will you prove you are good enough to be a leader?

"Even In Death May You Be Triumphant" 11:54, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

Chryslus Building

Are you able to check the GECK for a random encounter south of the Chryslus Building? Seems to appear a wastelander that you can save. You can find the entry in the layout exterior. Concept inactivity is about ready, last check with the bcs and it will be up soon. Jspoel 17:11, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

How did you discover that? Jspoel 17:33, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

Dialogues

I have a proposition for you. Can you help out with extracting the Fallout: New Vegas dialogue files from the GECK? It's not that hard, you can find the dialogue of each character in their GECK stats, select it, sort it a bit in Excel or OpenOffice and almost plain copy it to a wiki page. Theodorico (has a Russian name now) uses his bot to convert it to a table like you see here. Looks great, doesn't it and we add it to the character's infobox and can use it for reference. I can give you the details if you're interested. We're talking a few thousand entries so I can use all the help I can get. Let me know, ok? Jspoel 00:46, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

Your admin request

Hey there. I just saw the result posted on your second admin request forum today. Personally, I don't think you're not up to par with other admin candidates (of which there are few), and seeing the request delayed then rejected because of your audacity and unpopular opinions is rather disappointing. I'm sure you can work on a few things and then reapply in a few months to become an even stronger candidate. --Skire (talk) 23:26, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

No worries

All good my friend, I just prefer either a sub-heading under the vote type (in this case 'yes' since your excluded vote was yes) or a general heading of excluded votes for all types. Not a big deal, just some formatting OCD on my part, hence the eye twitch.  A Follower  Talk  05:10, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Chat logs

I have made it abudandly clear that if the bot is used for what you are using it for I will turn it off. As such, your behaviour is now putting the wiki at risk. If the bot is withdrawn it makes investigation of potential power abuse impossible. The Gunny   21:45, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Black Rock cave

Hey 69. Could you check the faction ID for the nightkin that spawn at Black Rock cave and see if it's the same as Tabitha's nightkin at Black Mountain? There seems to be a bug where they are aggressive after fixing Rhonda, and I'm wondering if it's indeed a bug or an oversight, or even if it's caused by an improper faction. Thanks.  A Follower  Talk  07:58, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the article that they become friendly, I think.  A Follower  Talk  04:21, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

I'll jump into NV when I get home from work tonight, and rework the article if I come to the same conclusion. Thanks for the help.  A Follower  Talk  22:19, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Page Errors

Hi, I didn't know who to let know but as of the last few days multiple pages have been garbaged up - (today is 2/5/14). I think it may be a template issue since its so many. Platform iMac, Safari. Here is what I see on the link http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/MPLX_Novasurge

(And much more)

Hmm, when I preview this nothing shows so this page is trying to parse it -- Here is line 1 - I kept the copy/paste above so you may be able to do a "view source" to see more - I used the / to keep it from parsing the line below so if you remove those thats what the line looks like. /{/{#vardefine:typeOrig|unique gun}}/{/{#vardefine:type|{/{#var:typeOrig}}}}

I hope this helps and your the right person to tell. :) Philbert 174.102.151.214 18:35, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Copyright Grammar

Nice catch. I didn't even notice that. From what I see on the template page, if it is able to be fixed, it doesn't appear very simple. You're welcome to take a crack at it, but Jspoel might be a better person to ask. _{Into the wild blue yonder...} 19:11, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Hello, 69.l25. You have new messages at Limmiegirl's talk page.
Message added 23:47, February 8, 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Response

Thank you for messaging me regarding this. I agree with what you say, and while I reserve the right to be critical of any situation, I agree it could've been handled better. I also feel the need to reiterate what others have said: criticism goes around here just as it does in life, and while someone may be critical of an action or statement, they aren't necessarily attacking you as a person, and I hope you realize that.

I too wish to move on from this, but I appreciate honesty above all else, especially in voting. I thought your original vote was a bit dishonest, and I truly hope that by changing your vote again you support me in this position; if not, I will do everything I can to earn it in the future.

I should also add that the timing of my request vs. yours was not intended to be anything against you. I wrote the proposal on January 26th and had decided to post it Feb. 1 regardless of either result on yours.

Again thanks for your message, and I hope to work with you in the future for the betterment of the wiki.  A Follower  Talk  23:45, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

A change of pace

I simply do not have the time anymore to properly edit and use my tools, which is why I resigned. However, I will still be on Nukapedia every now and again, especially so once the Moose kicks in and I'll be uploading weekly reports. So if you ever need me, just leave a message and I will still be around from time to time. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 08:34, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

Verification Issue

Hold on, I need to take a look at the page history to see when most of the bugs that were tagged were added. All bugs that were added before we implemented the verified subtag were tagged automatically with it because going through and verifying each bug on every page would have taken a lifetime to do, and the vast majority had already been verified by third parties at that point anyways (which is what the platforms tag originally served as sort of). If they were added before we implemented the verified subtemplate (which was way back in march) then the bugs are by policy already verified. However this may only be applicable to the Dead Money Bugs and The Pitt. ---bleep196- (talk) 21:53, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

After reviewing the Page Histories it seems one particular user went through and applied the verification need tag to all the bugs lacking platforms or a verified tag on them. I am going to attach the verified subtag to those bugs bearing a platform tag already as most of them were added well before the current bug policies were implemented. I will extend the date on those lacking a platform tag to give editors time to come forward and test the bugs, I may do some myself now that I have access to both NV and FO3 again. ---bleep196- (talk) 21:56, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

Defining 'lack of editing'

In response to your discussion about inactive users, I drafted a preliminary inactive policy similar to the current one, but with more definition as to 'inactive' vs. 'inactive for rights removal'. If you could, I would appreciate you jumping in to chat the next time you see me in there so we can discuss it further. Thanks.  A Follower  Talk  07:55, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

I just jumped into chat.  A Follower  Talk  01:43, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

Yukigachi

Him having just rollback rights is correct. He's the only one remaining from back in the days when we were still The Vault. I began with rollback rights (without patroller rights) as you can see here in a time when Wikia didn't have the patroller rights yet. That got introduced halfway through 2011 I think. Yukigachi got them from Ausir December 19, 2010 and never progressed. He kept being somewhat active and still has held on to those rollback rights (barely). I think he's rather proud of it, so we'll keep it that way. If he becomes too inactive, he'll lose them eventually, just like a patroller as we know them now. Jspoel 20:30, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

Please leave a message after the beep...

I'm out of town and only sporadically checking messages. I'll catch up on all the forums when I get back in town next week. The Gunny   23:07, February 12, 2014 (UTC)