aka A FANDOM User

Welcome to Nukapedia!

Greetings,, and welcome to the Fallout Wiki! We appreciate your contributions, and we hope you will make more!


User Resources

If you have questions, you can ask in our forums, join the live chat, or ask one of our administrators or moderators. We hope you enjoy editing here and look forward to working with you!

Best regards, Jspoelstra (talk) 23:32, September 4, 2013 (UTC)

Project Edit

Thanks, I really appreciate the help. An admin and undercover patroller-GECK aficionado can finish this shiz in no time! --Skire (talk) 00:09, September 5, 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I knew you were him. Unless there are now two anonymous GECK aficionados running around correcting character stats simultaneously... --Skire (talk) 01:07, September 5, 2013 (UTC)

What?!?!?!? Edit

WHAT?!?!?!? No. Get back to the old IP, I already had to memorize one, I don't wanna have to memorize a new one. Just ummm.... ummmm....... oh yeah! You could use your account! That's it. Richie9999 (talk) 03:19, September 5, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Civil War page Edit

We should be all set with the page. I'm done writing it as of now and Guardian is working on an image for the infobox. The page will probably need some editing for prose once published, since I haven't revised the writing much...

On a different note, I would hope you could make more edits on your user account, just for future consideration. It helps keep your contributions centralised, and gives you a more pronounced presence on the wiki. I say this because I hope you can go for an administrator position soon, given your dedication, technical prowess, and other attributes. Many admins have been inactive as of late, and I think we use another man right now as we continue to polish up the wiki and wait upon a new game... --Skire (talk) 19:49, September 5, 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, we can add that to the project, good thinking.
What people like to see here is applicants going significantly beyond the minimal requirements. I have no doubt that you are already beyond them if we pool contributions from two anonymous IPs as well as your actual user account. I think the biggest reason to edit only from the user is that people can know you more and be more aware of your presence, if they haven't seen your IPs and acknowledged your contributions from those. Maybe of our administrators have very busy lives and it's understandable if they go inactive during the period between games. We have a policy to deal with long-term inactivity. But you're right, many only make a few edits a week, which is why I think some extra help can be beneficial. Over the last few weeks, I've been seeing vandalism reverted but no one to deal with the vandal for sometimes over an hour. In addition, sysop rights will grant you access to edit MediaWiki pages and certain templates (especially meta-templates). You've been showing such admirable dedication, not to mention quickly adapting and learning the policies and practices of the wiki. The application process may be tough and even annoying at times, but it's technically non-binding as the bureaucrats make the final call. So make some more edits from your main user, make yourself a little more known, and I think you'll be ready. --Skire (talk) 22:06, September 5, 2013 (UTC)

Tranquility Lane Edit

Hey, that entry isn't considered a bug since it's merely an intended function of the screenshot taker for the save screen. In order to save memory and processing it skips the overlay screen filters such as the TL's sepia tone. Even if we were to consider it a bug, then due to it's source it wouldn't be a TL bug since it happen with all screen filters, which are in fact everywhere in default F3, making it a general game bug.
Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 17:44, September 22, 2013 (UTC)

Gallows Edit

I think the fact that this quest is anything but humorous, yet is named Gallows Humor is an obvious pointer towards its reference. If something is obvious enough, we tend to keep it. This isn't harmful, it's hardly making a groundbreaking revelation.--TwoBearsHigh-Fiving Intercom01 22:14, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. We all agree on removal of the second note, but removal of the first is completely unjustifiable. --Skire (talk) 22:17, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

You need justification for adding data, not removing it. You need to justify having it in the article. 22:19, September 27, 2013 (UTC)
What? You need to justify any action you take to change the content of an article. Your original edit to the page changed the status quo, and to do that, you need to justify it. You are the one asserting a claim, and therefore you need to prove that it doesn't belong. If you call it speculation and I call it blatantly obvious, we'll be at a clear impasse unless something is done to back it up. --Skire (talk) 22:34, September 27, 2013 (UTC)
Let me explain in the following: it would be absurd to add all the information we want and then justify removing things that are not related. Instead, we start with nothing and justify any additions we make. If I am speculating, then my justification for adding the info is wrong. 22:38, September 27, 2013 (UTC)
(Copied from my TP): What about Straus Calls, Aba Daba Honeymoon, Eyesight to the Blind, We Are Legion, or Sierra Madre? They have no sources, yet their references and the sources of their respective names are so obvious one would not need to waste time finding a definitive source. Countless quest names are named after '50's songs, but according to the arguments here, they're speculation unless the content of the song pertains to the quest.

Also, I have no interest in arguing about justifications. You have presented none, and I have already contended that the quest name and term "gallows humour" happens to match exactly. What is your rationale for calling it speculation? There is direct and self-evident textual correlation, which is sufficient for behind the scenes information according to FW:C. --Skire (talk) 22:48, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

You have the responsibility of including a justification for adding the note in. The only "justification" for removing it is that you have not provided a justification for adding it in. This is the only "justification" required for removing data. 22:50, September 27, 2013 (UTC)
With the discussion being held simultaneously on multiple TPs, I know how this can get tiring, but let me reiterate: There is direct and self-evident textual correlation, which is sufficient for behind the scenes information according to FW:C. And also, I did not add the note, but I am merely defending its inclusion in the article. Furthermore, you did not enquire as to whether or not there even was a justification, but simply speculated that there wasn't. --Skire (talk) 22:56, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

I'm leaving this here for convenience purposes:
FW: Gallow's Humour

I'm afraid I'm going to have to be that guy. The anon was correct to remove that BtS information. Not only is it speculative, but it's bad speculation. Gallow's Humour in technical terms has no correlation to the unmarked quest of the same name in Fallout 3. They plain and simply do not relate to each other, and so we cannot make the assumption that there is a reference involved there. I'll wait for your input, but at this point, I'm leaning towards removing it again as it breaks our policies. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 22:18, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

You have my position on this confused, friend. Please read my initial response again. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 22:29, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

I think you're viewing it as more than it is, this is not a: "Oh gee lol well I'm an admin and this sounds chill so let's do it."

There have been several times where we've accepted blatantly obvious information. An example that GarouxBloodline used was That Gun. It's absolutely obvious that the gun is a reference to Blade Runner, and this has since been confirmed. Another example are the quest names for Fallout: New Vegas. Many of them reference songs, specifically Frank Sinatra. It isn't unreasonable to take a quest like, "Ain't that a Kick in the Head" and say it references the song of the same title.

Again, we would only do this for blatantly obvious things, this is not an order to go forth and add what you wish, there would still need to be consensus. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving Intercom01 02:28, September 28, 2013 (UTC)

You are quite right, this would be subjective, I don't dispute that. However, in addition to taking the time with the community to word the clause well, this would likely be something that requires a consensus from multiple users at the time of the reference in question. One thing that I feel would be pragmatic is to at the same time make efforts to get it confirmed, (Keeping in mind that for older Fallout games this will be hard to do. For New Vegas myself and several others are connected with the Devs). I think what I'm trying to say is, at times, If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it probably is a duck.. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving Intercom01 02:40, September 28, 2013 (UTC)

Button ManEdit

What was wrong with the image already in the article? JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 16:25, September 28, 2013 (UTC)

Are you User:69.l25? If so, can you upload good images for the button men? Jspoel Speech Jspoel 16:35, September 28, 2013 (UTC)

Fallout 3 merchants Edit

Hey, why did you delete the info of the Fallout 3 merchants' Brahmin and guards? Paladin117>>iff bored; 00:34, September 29, 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages.Edit

  • Don't spam: Comments that are considered spam will be deleted by the staff. Examples of spam include one word posts, meaningless statements such as "Fallout x rocks/sucks" or random, nonsensical comments.
  • Don't flame: Comments intended to provoke other users (flamebait) or insulting them outright (flaming) will be deleted by the staff and may be grounds for blocking.
  • Don't be rude: Excessive rudeness to other posters (whether they are anonymous or not) is not welcome. Such comments will be deleted and may be grounds for blocking.
  • Be readable: If your message can't be understood, it will be considered spam. Leetspeek does constitute unreadability.
  • Be Accountable: Users are not allowed to remove comments from user talk pages or blank them, other than to remove insults/harassment or by archiving it (allowed after 40 posts or 32kb of talkpage content). Administrators need easy access to a users' talk page history. When in doubt if a post can be removed, consult an administrator. If a user talk page is blanked by a user, an admin has the right to revert the blanking unless it was done to remove harassment and/or insults. If a user blanks their talk page more than 3 times. it will be considered an edit war, at which point, an admin can step in and may perform a ban at their personal discretion.— User guideline

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing what's not allowed from the posts you blanked. Is there another policy regarding this? That one's the only one I found. ЮраYuriKaslov - Sig image 01:15, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

You're correct in reasoning that those posts do not qualify for insertion into talk pages. However, you have to realise some posts were made before the passing of the policy, which nullifies the policy's effect on them. Also, it isn't necessary to go about removing specific posts from TPs, but rather to look out for future posts on TPs that do not constitute discussion on the article itself. --Skire (talk) 01:25, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe those old posts should be archived instead of being deleted outright. ЮраYuriKaslov - Sig image 01:30, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

Posts made before September 2009 have an absolute right to stay, as they were posted before implementation of the TP policy. As for the others, you can remove at your discretion, and be sure to focus on new posts being made that do not belong. That way, we can hopefully clean up all the TPs in time (although how beneficial that may actually be I'm not sure...) Anyway, hope you have a good day. --Skire (talk) 01:34, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

Dismiss? Read what I wrote again: As for the others, you can remove at your discretion, and be sure to focus on new posts being made that do not belong. That way, we can hopefully clean up all the TPs in time. I'm not sure how often TPs will be used now that the game's been released for such awhile, but if it weren't a worthy effort I wouldn't be agreeing with your changes, would I? We're here for the same purpose - to service the wiki. Everything we've both done has been in good faith. There is no reason for any animosity at all. --Skire (talk) 01:41, September 30, 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely. Just posts before September 2009 should remain, since they were made before the policy, and we don't really do ex post facto policies. There aren't many of those anyway. Many users come here and like to share, boast, suggest, etc. on TPs, without realising what they're really for. As long as a post has a little bit to do with discussion of the article itself, I'd leave it. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused. Sometimes it's not good to ramble so much >_> --Skire (talk) 01:47, September 30, 2013 (UTC)
They existed before the addition of the policy. Unless the policy is retroactive, older posts are automatically exempt. Porter21 added the policy to the page in September of 2009. Generally, policies we pass are not retroactive (which means it will not affect instances that existed before its passing). --Skire (talk) 02:08, September 30, 2013 (UTC)
I can't find the forum discussion and it may be possible that Porter added it with implied consensus after a discussion somewhere. In general, we do not pass retroactive policies, and unless explicitly stated as such, policies are not treated as such. For example, the no-blanking-your-user-TP policy would not punish those who blanked their user TPs before the passing of the policy. --Skire (talk) 02:21, September 30, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I wish that discussion (should it even exist lol) included a clause making it ex post facto, so we can delete posts made before the policy's passing... I certainly agree this has been an issue, but I don't blame the average users and anons for not knowing. Getting started on the clean-up is even better as it sets a good example for when FO4 comes out and article TPs will become very hot. Anyway, it's been a pleasure, but I need to catch some shut-eye. Take care =) --Skire (talk) 02:31, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

( Indeed. Closure is a good thing! --Skire (talk) 02:35, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

Enclave outposts Edit

I thought it looked alright, all except the bottom-most one. Apparently the coding didn't work out as I intended. Enclavesymbol 03:42, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

Your way is better good sir, but I thank you for improving upon my original intent. Nothing like some teamwork eh? Looks much better now though, hopefully I can get around to getting screens for all of the scripted events so there is pic for everything in the article... which would make it utterly complete.

That's my goal for all of the Enclave articles, make sure they're optimal as can be. Enclavesymbol 11:44, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

Article TPs (continued) Edit

All right, so I was thinking about our talk last night. I have a suggestion to make a change, outlined here. I would appreciate it if you could share your thoughts there. This would give us permission to remove old posts as we are making the policy a post de facto law. --Skire (talk) 19:09, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

GarouxBloodline - Some Assembly Required!ForGaroux
TALK - New Features Discussion
Hey, GECKanon. When you get the chance, can you give this forum a look? I have a few finished ideas that I'd like to get some community input from, and your feedback would be appreciated.

Talon Company mercEdit

All generic characters (or at least almost all) have the sex mentioned. There's no reason to remove it from the Talon Company merc page. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 20:52, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

I think for the Talon Company, their sex is particularly note-worthy, as well, since there are only a handful of females ever seen, and only at fixed locations. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 20:57, October 1, 2013 (UTC)
That's why I specifically said "...note-worthy...". :P Info-box I don't have too much of an opinion over. It's valid either way, really, if one wants to get truly technical. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 21:05, October 1, 2013 (UTC)
That was one of my points as well. And we have a sex parameter for the infobox, so we can use it for all characters. That's justification enough in my opinion. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 21:04, October 1, 2013 (UTC)
It's not the most essential parameter, but I don't see it as redundant. It belongs in the infobox to make it more complete. The infoboxes are for showing the basic (and some additional) stats for a character, the sex is one those. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 21:28, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

( Sounds good to me. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 21:35, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

Re: "Why remove this?"Edit

While I do see your point, the statements above are sufficient reasons for the information to be retained, I believe. While it is most definitely the responsibility of a user adding information to justify it (although reviewing the added content usually makes it self-evident), to me it is infinitely more important for a user to justify their removal of content that has stood through years of revision. Regardless, your condescending tone, both with editors and in your summaries, does not do you any credit. If you wish for your views to be taken seriously by users here, condescension of said users is not the way to do it. FollowersApocalypseLogoōrdō āb chao 21:22, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I agree that insufficient reason to include an item of information is justification for it's removal. My only issue is that this justification was not in the edit summary, therefore I reverted it as a precaution (mostly due to your anon IP and previous issues with content removal). Personally, I think it is notable in this situation but I see your argued points and either way of listing the information is fine with me. As for your tone, I do not appreciate condescension towards anyone. I am more than willing to discuss anything you may take issue with as long as it is in a civil manner. FollowersApocalypseLogoōrdō āb chao 16:01, October 3, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Adventurer Edit

No problem, my friend! It's always fascinating to discover new content that we haven't ever covered here before, isn't it? --Skire (talk) 02:05, October 2, 2013 (UTC)


Why are you creating an empty page? It needs content to deserve creation. And best to use your regular user account. Now we have an admin how doesn't recognize and might become a little agitated. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 20:34, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

I've created a basic page, and you should fill in more information when you have time. I wouldn't know who it is, it's not in the GECK but you will have found the character/name somewhere I'm sure. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 20:59, October 4, 2013 (UTC)
Had another question. Do you know the refid's of the 2 Button Man and by any chance? Jspoel Speech Jspoel 21:01, October 4, 2013 (UTC)
You can enter PC console mode by using the ~ and then click on the character in the game to get the refid. Btw, I think I found Ranger Gomez and have added some information. It's a good find to discover a new character after 3 years of games' release! Jspoel Speech Jspoel 21:22, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

RE: This EditEdit

I could have sworn there are in fact male hookers inside Gomorrah... --THE-HECK-OF-A-GUY (talk) 14:31, October 5, 2013 (UTC)

Ah, now that makes sense, sorry for the inconvenience. Also, I noticed you edit quite a lot, you should consider making an account. --THE-HECK-OF-A-GUY (talk) 14:39, October 5, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Grammar Edit

Using "which" would stipulate commas (e.g. Our room, which is located on the third floor, has a nice view."). Since it would be grammatically inappropriate to insert commas in the sentence in question, "that" should be used in its stead. This constructive builds significantly upon the sentence because it indicates which room is being referred to, instead of just providing non-essential detail (as "which" would do). --Skire (talk) 03:45, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

Well, you didn't add one. It would be awkward: You could also kill Harland and access the terminal upstairs, which contains the invoice, or sneak past him and access the terminal that way. It's a very interesting and unique situation, and we're not grammarians, so I'm going to rewrite the sentence in a way that rids us of the issue. Fair? --Skire (talk) 03:54, October 6, 2013 (UTC)
I've made the revision. Would you be fine with those changes? --Skire (talk) 04:00, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

Piers Isley Edit

I'm going to be blunt about this. If you're going to make a change to a page, then you need to mention the rationale behind such a change in the edit summary. The edit summary is where you explain changes made to a page, especially changes that are likely to be controversial or subject to some scrutiny (e.g. removal of a long-standing image from an article's infobox). Making a controversial change without explaining whatsoever your motives for said change, and then challenging a good-faith reversion in such a way is simply poor editing etiquette. The image is all we have of a mentioned-only character, and it's well established that the skeleton is his (if you're going to dispute that, then 75% of the article content will have to go with it). Now, you need to explain yourself, as you should have done in the first place when you made the change. Such editing behaviours set a poor example and are completely inappropriate. Utilise edit summaries properly and don't edit war. --Skire (talk) 17:58, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

Then be consistent in your editing and remove the other "speculation." The entire identity of the character would be, in your words, "speculation." The policies are meant to be followed in spirit, not to the absolute letter that it inhibits personal judgement. --Skire (talk) 18:02, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I meant to comment on it last night, but will now. You're an asset to the community, sorry it seems we just butt heads sometimes... Agent c (talk) 19:44, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

I understand. Disagreements and conflict are an intrinsic part of any on-line community, but I'm very glad we were able to come to a satisfying resolution. And I'd like to commend you on your positive attitude and initiative; that's the kind of thing that separates certain users from the crowd. I'll give your forum a thorough read. --Skire (talk) 19:49, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

TP messagesEdit


Can you be a bit clearer with the people you're leaving messages for as to what they're doing wrong, and how to improve their edits... thanks. Agent c (talk) 23:53, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to give him one more chance. Assuming good faith is assuming ignorance, and perhaps he just didn't know of our policies (which can be quite Byzantine to new users). It's good that you reached out, and we'll see what happens from here. --Skire (talk) 23:58, October 6, 2013 (UTC)


What's ridiculous about showing the difference mentioned in this article? -- 19:36, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

It isn't just darker skins, the skins show reddish burn marks (click on it to see them 1920x1080 if you wouldn't see them in smaller version). For as far as i know, the burned people are the only people in FO: NV with this skin type. When i define "normal skin" i mean the skintypes that random people in encounters have (african, caucasian, hispanic, asian etc.). And yeah, it's just 2 dead bodies slammed against each other, but it is the best way to show the difference in skins. Both women were caucasian before the flamer, so it's in my opinion the best way to compare and show the difference. That's in my opinion the reason it's noteworthy, maybe you have another opinion on it now, otherwise leave again something on my talkpage. --Thems good eatin Time for some waterboarding (ಠ_ಠ)" 19:48, October 10, 2013 (UTC)
I'm prety sure i checked that they were both caucasian, and not 1 caucasian and 1 asian, but i see you're backed by GarouxBloodline, so i'll guess you'll be right. My apologies --Thems good eatin Time for some waterboarding (ಠ_ಠ)" 19:58, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

What's underlying our misunderstandingEdit

Would you please elaborate what exactly did I violate in the Tunnelers discussion? I added my own tactics to a proposed list (is THAT considered general clutter or an anecdote?). After which, the entire page was replaced by a banner. Also, you claim that this was my third violation. It cannot be just because Tunnelers was the first talk I joined EVER, and I've never had any warnings. There's gotta be a mix-up somewhere. Again, please point me to some of my offensive posts prior to that last gush about user authentication. Thank you. --Crackadial (talk) 19:38, October 14, 2013 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. I'm not sure if you're unaware that you have one or you've just been ignoring me this whole time, but, regardless, my response is there. 19:46, October 14, 2013 (UTC)

Please see for my apologetic take on the current situation, if you care. Crackadial (talk) 08:17, October 15, 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaryEdit

2009 editors are to this wiki what people nowadays are to the environment

I'm not sure why you would say something like this, but this wiki exists in its state because of those who stuck around in the early days to build it up. You will not misuse the edit summary space to insult their work. --Skire (talk) 23:51, October 15, 2013 (UTC)

Well, the italicising hadn't been done until you started it, which means editors like Jspoel and myself are equally responsible for not addressing the issue (They are not italicised in-game, which probably accounts for why the old editors didn't bother with italicising). Also, I would guess that numbers as figures in a list are more excusable than in a paragraph or non-list writing. This is likely how the old editors thought notable loot to be: an enumeration of items that would benefit from numbers being written as figures. MoS is not too clear on this. Anyway, that's all I got. Try to understand why people did things differently a few years ago, and remember that an edit summary is for a summary of change(s), not snide commentary. --Skire (talk) 00:40, October 16, 2013 (UTC)
Awesome. I'll see if I can get my bot to assist with this (rather hefty) task. --Skire (talk) 18:39, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

Ritual site Edit

I'm a bit confused by your edit. I replaced that comma with a semi-colon, because in its current use, the comma was a comma splice, which is incorrect grammar. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 10:31, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

  • "The local swampfolk sacrifice unwary travelers, and keep a vessel full of blood surrounding the Krivbeknih, a very dark and mysterious tome."
  • Both parts of the sentence are independent clauses, making the comma after Krivbeknih a comma splice. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 10:34, October 16, 2013 (UTC)
There are exceptions to the general rule, as is common throughout English. For instance, I wouldn't say "The dog is brown, it is also white." I would say "The dog is brown; it is also white." ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 10:39, October 16, 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that it would. The sentence begins talking about the swampfolk, and then moves on with a detailing of the book. Aside from a lack of verb usage, as I showed is possible with my example above only utilizing an auxiliary verb, the two sections of the same sentence appear to be independent of each other, making the comma added there a comma splice in my eyes. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 10:47, October 16, 2013 (UTC)
Ah, no, you're right. A semi-colon doesn't necessarily differentiate the two independent clauses as having no relation to each other, but I had forgotten that a fragment sentence isn't proper to use in such a case. Consider my question pulled. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 10:54, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

Now that's sorted Edit

I get the point you know, I wasn't trying to start anything, but I thought I should at least say something! Anyway now that's sorted, might to I point you to Shadis, that's a "may refer to", has a citation needed tag, and it's been there a long time. How long can they stand and how do they become 'official'? --TribalWisdom(colour) Talk! 23:10, October 17, 2013 (UTC)

I was still fairly new back then (not an excuse, but I did also forget about it), I must've jumped to those conclusions using Gallos' radroaches as a comparison, and what I thought was right at the time. It hasn't been challenged until now but of course if it needs changing by all means do so. I'd like to think I've come far since then! --TribalWisdom(colour) Talk! 23:52, October 17, 2013 (UTC)

If it is smaller than whichever is smaller of Gallos' and 108's and we can't verify it is the smallest, the wording can at least be modified to one of the smallest which would be appropriate, but I'll leave that to you. --TribalWisdom(colour) Talk! 00:13, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

Welcome backEdit

Dunno who else has noticed, but welcome back. You have been missed. Agent c (talk) 19:53, June 26, 2014 (UTC)

Two-Bears High-Fiving Edit

I reverted your removal of the citation that Two-bears is a reference to a mod. Given that J.E. Sawyer directly states that "Two Bears High-Fiving is a reference to a popular mod for the opening ink blot tests from Doc Mitchell..." The reference is valid and stays. Richie9999 (talk) 20:13, June 26, 2014 (UTC)

Normally not, but given that the mod is the source of the reference and directly referred to by J.E. Sawyer I figure it should stay along with his citation. Richie9999 (talk) 20:48, June 26, 2014 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+