Welcome to Nukapedia!

Greetings, 90TheGeneral09, 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, The Gunny (talk) 02:21, January 12, 2018 (UTC)

Re:Major DhatriEdit

Hello! I am the neutral party in this matter, as such I do not have an opinion on the matter. When users undo each other's edits, that means there is an edit war and an admin has to step in. The matter is between you and Paladin, discuss it with him and reach a consensus together. Whatever you two agree on can be added to the article. DisgustingWastelander (talk) 22:29, January 12, 2018 (UTC)

I am at a loss here. So the people running the Fallout wiki just assume, every time there is an editing dispute, that the two people having the dispute should, can and will resolve it themselves? What happens if that doesn't work? --90TheGeneral09 (talk) 23:16, January 12, 2018 (UTC)
Then a neutral third party would make the decision. And it doesn't have to be a debate between just the two editors, anyone can add to the debate. DisgustingWastelander (talk) 23:18, January 12, 2018 (UTC)
That makes much more sense. Given how these things work out most often on Wikipedia and Wikiquote, I can tell you it is naive at best to have it as an established part of procedure to expect edit wars to be resolved by the sides doing the fighting. And given how the disputes I've just wound up in are so specific to the game they are about, it would be a real big help if somebody was able to step in who knew the content and could make any kind of call on it themselves. --90TheGeneral09 (talk) 23:20, January 12, 2018 (UTC)
I do not know why the infobox refers to him as the 1st Recon commander, nor why 1st Recon is referred to as a battalion. I do, however, know that the game refers to Gorobets as the commander and Dhatri at no point refers to himself as a member. He also does not follow 1st Recon if they transfer to Camp Forlorn Hope. Paladin117>>iff bored; 22:36, January 12, 2018 (UTC)
Being in charge of a unit doesn’t automatically make them part of said unit and required to dress in their uniform. Thats like saying an OPs officer should be wearing paint coveralls because they’re in command of the Deck division. Great Mara (talk) 22:40, January 12, 2018 (UTC)
To Paladin117: Me neither on the first. But the second, why is it a battalion? It's explicitly stated to be one. Craig Boone says "1st Recon. It's a sniper battalion." The NCR Army specified that 1st Recon would be a battalion-strength unit and so it was. You may be interested to know I have been checking dialogue files, and Sergeant Bitter-Root has dialogue in which he refers to Gorobets and Dhatri as a CO. Specifically, if Gorobets dies, Bitter-Root says, "Never lost a CO before", and he refers to Major Dhatri as "our CO" when recommending the player talk to Dhatri concerning work to do in the area.
To Great Mara: I do not understand the "that's like" example you used in claiming that being in command of a unit does not make you part of it. What is an "OP"? And referencing a Deck makes me think of the Navy. Specifically, now. If you are in command of a platoon, you are PART OF THAT PLATOON. If you command a company, ditto. A battalion, the same. A brigade, a regiment, a division, YES. I can't think of many instances where an officer commands a military unit and is literally not part of it.
The only exception is with, say, subordinate units within a unit the officer commands. If you command 1st Infantry Division, for instance, you are part of the division but not part of the regiments/brigades, battalions, companies, platoons, squads, and fire teams contained within that division. In saying that commanding a unit makes you part of it, I refer to the NCR Army way, which is based off the pre-war United States Army way. And in the United States Army, Great Mara, if you command a unit you're part of it. The NCR Army is never, ever so much as hinted to operate in some drastically different way. If you are in any way referencing the Navy, toss that stuff out the window, because the NCR Army is on land and they don't do "Deck divisions".
As a rule, it is rare, especially in army units, for a person to command a unit and NOT be part of it. Commanding officers are not some strange breed of leader that are exempt from being part of the force they command, or being like them in any way. If you command 1st Infantry Division, you wear the division insignia. If you command any unit with distinctive insignia like 1st Recon does, you wear that insignia. I'm curious as to where this Navy-sounding "Deck division" stuff comes from... --90TheGeneral09 (talk) 22:50, January 12, 2018 (UTC)
No, officers can be in charge of a division under their department and not be a part of said division. And the Navy is still relevant because the organization schema is the same as everything else despite different terms being used through each military branch, so you can drop that line of thinking right now. Great Mara (talk) 00:23, January 13, 2018 (UTC)
That is ALL NAVY stuff you are referring to! I speak ONLY of Army command units. An Army division is a unit typically commanded by a two-star general, called major general, and he is PART OF THAT UNIT. I could not possibly have been more clear on this. No, no, the Navy is only of limited relevance because the Navy defines who commands what and how differently from the Army! You appear to be treating it as literally the same thing, and it is not. It is shocking that I must tell you this given how you seem to know something about the Navy, but it is NOT THE ARMY. They do not do everything the way the Army does. God knows I wish they did, otherwise you wouldn't be yelling useless Navy stuff at me when I have repeatedly made it extremely clear I am talking Army.
Perhaps this, taken from Wikipedia's definition of an army division will help.
" in naval usage division has a completely different meaning, referring to either an administrative/functional sub-unit of a department (e.g., fire control division of the weapons department) aboard naval and coast guard ships, shore commands, and in naval aviation units (including navy, marine corps, and coast guard aviation), to a sub-unit of several ships within a flotilla or squadron, or to two or three sections of aircraft operating under a designated division leader."
And "you can drop that line of thinking right now"? I refuse. You cannot dictate policy to me. I want to tell you something else, since you clearly define all military command as it is specified in the Navy. Or some PARTS of the Navy. I can tell you that the commanders of "USS Thresher" and "USS Scorpion" sure are exceptions to your absolute rule that command of a unit means being totally apart from the unit, since "lost with all hands" includes the commanding officer. Even in the Navy, when you command a ship or a sub or a helicopter or fixed wing squadron, that's your unit and you're in it. Command of an operational unit- any Marine or Army fire team up to a division or corps, or leading a division or, yes, commanding a ship- means you are PART of what you lead. I don't know who taught you this is how leadership works but the commissioned officer who leads a platoon on up and acts like he's absolutely separate from his/her unit is gonna have a real hard time convincing those people to go into harm's way or even unload a truck because he said so. --90TheGeneral09 (talk) 00:31, January 13, 2018 (UTC)
To Great Mara, whose reply to the above is missing from this page despite telling me to "stop spamming" their page because this is apparently where the Army-Navy game is happening this year: A.) Great Mara, I do not need the basic chain of command defined for me. You may assume I know that. Also, I *literally* just explained that officers can indeed command units they are not a part of. A division commander in the Army or Marines is not a part of brigades, regiments, battalions, companies, etc. that are in that division. But the unit he commands DIRECTLY, the one that is most clearly his- he is a part of that. Which was my point.
B.) Indeed, the concept of commanding a unit that has smaller units that make up the bigger unit does exist across the services.
C.) Yes, but are you necessarily paying attention to that? I don't know. I'm "spamming" your page no more than you are mine, Navy person. --90TheGeneral09 (talk) 00:58, January 13, 2018 (UTC)
I think this has all been carried far enough. You aren't incorrect in what you've said about how some aspects of command work in the Navy, and what a "division" is by Navy terms. But from the beginning I spoke exclusively of Army/Marine terminology on such things. That was all. Yes, some things are the same across the board but at the end of the day the services speak different languages sometimes, and when it comes to Army and Navy that is most definitely the case. Something to bear in mind when what a word like "division" means to one service versus another. Your knowledge base is focused on the Navy. Mine is focused on the Army. That's where this whole nonsense conflict came from. I apologize for so drastically losing my temper and hope this has helped to clarify things somewhat. --90TheGeneral09 (talk) 03:36, January 13, 2018 (UTC)

Edit Warring Objection Edit

This is a modification of a message I originally made to one of this site's administrators.


Before you assume I am the villain when I revert the edit back (because that seems to happen every time I edit on this site no matter what I do) consider this. What am I getting a reputation on this site for? Edit wars. And how has literally every single one of them happened? I make an edit. Someone else comes along and reverts that edit. A site admin, another user, whatever. They come along and just revert the edit. Not modify it, not ask me, hey, what's up with that edit? No. 100% retaliation, just revert the edit completely. That's how you do things reasonably, yeah? You just obliterate what the other guy did. And then, oh, my sweet goodness, how DARE I respond and try to defend the edit I made?! I have been ordered to stop "edit warring" but what I would like to know is when exactly you people are going to change the way you control this wiki. I submit several objections in the strongest possible terms and protest that this system is allowed to exist in this way:

1. Anyone who reverts an edit is presumed good. They need provide no explanation. They do not need to discuss it beforehand with the previous editor. They have FULL license to undo any edit, for any reason, any time, anywhere. It is officially assumed that they did it for a good reason. This is an assumption, an unsubstantiated assumption, and it is naive.

2. Anyone who reverts a revert of an edit is assumed criminal and bad. So User A makes an edit. User B reverts it. Maybe they give a reason, maybe they don't. Either way, when User B reverts it, then it becomes an edit war and User B is held to be at fault while User A walks off clean.

3. There seems to be a strong preference on this website for keeping pages however they happen to be. I have edited extensively on Wikipedia and Wikiquote, MUCH larger websites that have to put up with way more vandalism and genuinely faulty edits than this one does. And you know something? They like me just fine. My work is often appreciated by site administrators and I am left alone. Here, I do not feel that way. I feel unwanted and persecuted. I am not a vandal. I am not deliberately picking fights. I am trying to help. And it does not look like that matters.

4. In the case of the page on Davey Crenshaw, I had my edit initially undone because another user claimed the edit I made was "not in the .txt file". I reverted the revert and pointed out that it is. Pretty soon, though, other people started getting into it. Reverts were done again and again, with every new reverter 100% assuming that the page was better off "before the edit war". No examination OF the edit, nothing, just "Let's put it back."

5. This site expects that anyone who gets an edit of theirs reverted to discuss things in detail with the person who reverted their edit. WHY does the burden of diplomacy and discussion lie with User B and not with User A? Why is it that if any old user reverts an edit, THEY are assumed to be in the right by this site's authorities, while anyone who has a problem with their edit being reverted must go through all these channels and practically take it to Congress? A LOT more is expected of a user who gets an edit reverted than the user who does the reverting. What seems to be implied in this is that I may revert as many of others' edits as I please. But oh, boy, I will be in trouble if I defend an edit I make.

I realize that I am upset about this, and that I am probably coming off as a terrible user and a problem for the website. I affirm that I have been, and am now, trying to help and to improve the site. I have been shocked from the beginning at the way that reverting an edit is so common on this site. It is freely permitted. Even some of my most moderate and verified-in-game edits are open to being reverted for no specified reason at all. I have no rights as the defendant. I must prove myself and my edit worthy and valid, because again, the burden is on me and not on whoever reverted my edit. I apologize for stirring up my share of trouble and then some, but I strongly insist that I am not a pirate or vandal and that this website is hardly run as well as Wikipedia or Wikiquote, which are, after all, the oldest websites of this format. Please feel free to share your thoughts on this. I may seem hot-headed but I welcome the chance to talk to soemone abut this. I just can't stand being seen as the bad guy because everyone is allowed to revert my edits and I have to get their permission before putting my edit back, no matter what it is or who they are. --90TheGeneral09 (talk) 16:46, January 19, 2018 (UTC)

edit warringEdit

Distusting has already said if you are reverted, you seek consensus with the reverter before reverting back. I'm going to revert Gorobets back. Any further edit warring will result in a block. Seek consensus on disputes first. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 23:06, January 12, 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand this. So if Person 1 reverts, Person 2 must, regardless of the circumstances, consult with Person 1 before doing anything? How is that sensible or fair? Is this explicitly written into this website's rules? And what makes the first guy's choice of what the page "should" look like better than the second's? Good to know, though, that as long as I hit "Revert" FIRST, I am golden because the other guy's gotta hold a Senate hearing with me before he can act. Your warning is noted. --90TheGeneral09 (talk) 23:10, January 12, 2018 (UTC)

If someone reverts you change, they feel the change isn't right for some reason. It is written into our user conduct guideline. As for following you around I had the edit flagged to me, which actually doesn't meet our standards of factual, as it is in fact speculative. "Probably is" means we don't know and we don't include anything beyond what we know to be certain. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 23:15, January 12, 2018 (UTC)

That is true, I suppose, but it assumes good faith and intent. I have seen more than one instance where someone who reverted an edit did NOT have good faith or intent, but simply didn't like the change and put the page back where it was because hey, that's how they wanted it. However, you have a point. Speculative items are meant to be kept off any proper wiki, at least as much as possible. I tell you, I sure wish the makers of "New Vegas" had just explicitly said "Major Dhatri commands X" and "Lieutenant Gorobets commands Y" or something, instead of leaving it in this gray area that the soldiers themselves would just never have done. --90TheGeneral09 (talk) 01:18, January 13, 2018 (UTC)

Major Dhatri conclusionEdit

We do not know for sure if Major Dhatri is commanding officer of the 1st Recon Batallion or not. Bitter-Root states You a merc? Then I guess you'd want to talk to my, uh... father. Major Dhatri. He's our CO. CO of what? This is never specified. Additionally, Gorobets is also referred to as CO: I've never lost a CO before. It doesn't feel right.. This means all the info you've added is essentially speculation. DisgustingWastelander (talk) 00:35, January 13, 2018 (UTC)

Given the context I argue it's almost certain Dhatri commands 1st Recon. Think of it this way. What else could Bitter-Root *possibly* mean by saying "He's our CO"? CO of the regiment, brigade or division that 1st Recon is attached to? Not likely- he's a major, not a colonel, or a general. And he sure isn't CO of the base, because that's Colonel Hsu. When Bitter-Root says that, he almost 100% means "our CO" in the sense of "the CO of this unit, 1st Recon". He means that when he says "our". I sure do wish like heck that the game-makers had made the dialogue extremely clear on this point. But even with the ambiguity, I see nothing else that Bitter-Root could have meant by the comment. --90TheGeneral09 (talk) 01:22, January 13, 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, and only to speak to the possibility of the command structure of the 1st recon, I would suggest, of course complete speculation so it can't be included by itself on the page as it's pure synthesis, but: If we assume that 1st recon is a battalion, it would be widely out of the norm for a junior officer (Lieutenant) to command (as in CO, commanding officer) a battalion. Grunt battalions are typically commanded by field grade officers, specifically Lt. Colonels and full bird Colonels. Majors are typically a staff position, most often running the Admin, Intel, Operations and Supply shops (S1, S2, S3, S4) among other billets at battalion level such as fire support officer and air liaison, etc. Have I seen Majors command battalions, yes. Is it common, no. Have I seen Lieutenants command battalions? No. Never. Given the ranks, and the assumed structure similar to the pre-war US military, it is most probable that Dhatri commands the 1st recon battalion, while Gorobets commands the sniper platoon of which the NPCs in the game are a part of. This would be a billet fitting an LT. Whatever company level formation the sniper platoon is a part of is probably commanded by a Captain, who we never see. This answers all questions. Both men are COs of Bitter-Root. Now, the real question is why the hell do they even have and entire battalion of snipers? Battalions are typically in the area of 500+ men. Snipers would typically be in platoon strength, at the battalion level of a regular grunt battalion as part of the weapons company or the headquarters company. Again, while this answers most possible questions, it's all speculation. Take it for what it's worth. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 03:22, January 13, 2018 (UTC)
This is absolutely on-point. I'd had some thoughts cross my mind that were similar enough, but you took it further and nailed down every detail. I believe that, in all likelihood, you are correct about Gorobets and Dhatri. It makes sense that one would be commanding a sniper platoon, specifically the one that the snipers we see him with, whereas Dhatri could well be commanding 1st Recon. The way you explain it all is so accurate, I can't see it any other way, really. The NCR Army models itself on the old US Army and that's the way it works. But where we run into trouble is proof in-game. I have pointed to dialogue referenced here, in which Sergeant Bitter-Root says "he's our CO" in reference to Dhatri, which I took to mean Dhatri is the battalion commander. But it seems like, as good as your reasoning is, it seems that what you and I have come up with is regarded as speculation and thus not fit to be placed in the Notes section of a page. I'd argue that "he's our CO" cannot possibly mean anything BUT Dhatri is the battalion's commander. But my word is not law. But maybe your input can help here. I'd like to suggest you share these thoughts with anyone who might be interested. Thanks for the commentary, Gunny. It is much appreciated. --90TheGeneral09 (talk) 03:31, January 13, 2018 (UTC)

Crashed scout bus editsEdit

Please don't edit war. If you disagree with my edits, tell me on my talk page. That's more productive than editing back and forth anyway.
- FDekker talk 15:32, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. I hadn't considered that children's skeletons would have different proportions; with that in mind your note makes more sense. I've looked it up in the GECK, and it looks like you're right. I've added a similar note back in; please tell me if you disagree or think something should be different. Also, I feel like I might be on an FBI watchlist now for Googling things about childrens' skeletons :P
- FDekker talk 15:49, January 16, 2018 (UTC)
It's understandable. It took until my second playthrough of "Honest Hearts" to notice. I just happened to decide to take a closer look at the interior of the bus and noticed the skulls of some of the child skeletons were far too small for someone of that height, which got my attention. I had a look at the edited note, and that's fine, more concise than what I originally wrote, as well. I hope not, but I can understand why you'd worry! --90TheGeneral09 (talk) 15:59, January 16, 2018 (UTC)


Just dropping by to say you're making a nice start here I think, it's been a long time since we've had someone add considerable content to pages, it shows you've done some digging into the games. Remark about the Godfather reference, you probably missed it, but that's a note for behind the scenes; it's already there. Thanks for the contributions, keep up the good work. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 16:22, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for the comment. I always welcome a chance to interact with other wiki users, and of course, I always like to know my work is appreciated. With games like New Vegas, I greatly enjoy the chance to learn the game's universe, to identify all kinds of angles, nuances, and details. I feel like a wiki doesn't need to have every microscopic detail, but a good wiki can be a great way to get intel on the game. It can also help to tell the story of the game somewhat. I assure you, every edit I make here- while I am not always right and some of my edits have been superfluous, extra, or speculation- is made with the best of intentions. I have a decent amount of knowledge of Fallout, primarily of New Vegas, and I have noticed that many of the pages are small or lacking information or detail I think they could use. I have both knowledge of the games themselves, and of some of the real-world things they can pertain to, like the organization of the NCR Army being based off the old United States Army. Anyway. You are absolutely correct about the Godfather reference. It already was listed in "Behind the Scenes" for his page, and I just missed that, is all. You are welcome, thank you in return, and I will do my best. --90TheGeneral09 (talk) 16:51, January 19, 2018 (UTC)


I agree with Jspoel: Your edits are good. You add full paragraphs of fresh information (and unlike many others your grammar is correct :P). Of course, adding new contents sometimes leads to disagreements about correctness or verifiability, and those disagreements may devolve into edit wars. That happened again this morning (albeit a very brief edit war). I read the "edit warring" section on your talk page above, and feel that that discussion didn't reach a satisfying conclusion. After all, you do have a good point when you say that it's unfair that the person whose edit is reverted has to initiate the conversation, which would imply that the person who does the revert is "correct until proven otherwise".

I agree that this is unfair, but would argue that it (sometimes) makes sense. When an edit is reverted, the reverter considers the edit to be "obviously" wrong, incorrect, or otherwise bad. But why doesn't the reverter leave a message on the author's talk page? Because the reverter thinks they're right. But what gives the reverter the right to think they're right? They claim this right by their experience (and ego). But why? Because if they didn't, no one would be reverting the edits that are actually wrong. A reverter only reverts (or rather: should only revert) when they are certain that the edit in question is bad (but they can be wrong). I think reverts are often chosen instead of talk messages because the reverter assumes that either the author isn't going to respond (which happens very often, especially with anonymous editors) or because they hope the author will realise that the reverter is actually right (which sometimes just doesn't work that way, in which case an edit war will start).
So what should you do when your edit is reverted? Well, you could revert the revert. But this is always a bad option, because you know the other editor is just going to revert your revert of the revert. Reverting a revert is guaranteed to not solve anything. On the other hand, leaving a message on a talk page gives you a good change to solve the issue at hand.

Please let me know what you think, I'm genuinely interested in your answer. Alternatively, if you don't feel like having this discussion, just tell me :P
- FDekker talk 10:57, January 19, 2018 (UTC)

Several of us have already told you before to discuss with the other user and not revert a revert. I was upholding the rules as admin, I did add some commentators for discussion when I reverted. I've reverted the edit again as consensus needs to be reach with Level3Rogue, otherwise it will be a constant back and forward. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 13:53, January 19, 2018 (UTC)
Sakaratte reverted it back to the original state from before the edit war. You need to stop edit warring. You have been given several warnings, and soon we'll run out of those and give you a block instead. DisgustingWastelander (talk) 16:18, January 19, 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Sakarette did. WHY? That's what I want to know. This website has no shortage of people who make this flat-out and foolish assumption that if you revert an edit, you did something good, and if you revert a revert, you did something criminal and bad. YOU NEED TO STOP. This site allows persecution and witch-hunting of well-meaning editors. Why is it that you allow this to go on? What do you or any other site administrator or user have to gain from permitting users to just revert edits and then get mad only at the person who reverts the edit? I can read, you know. I am extremely aware of the fact that Sakarette reverted the page to how it was before the edit war. What I want done is for even one user to look at the edit I added, and explain why it was so utterly wrong when it is clearly verified within the .txt file for that character. I AM TRYING TO HELP. Why do so many people who control this site have such a bullheaded way of doing things? You have the power to block me. Do it if you wish. But I am telling you that this system on this wiki is WRONG, that it assumes that anyone who reverts an edit is doing it for good reasons, and punishes and threatens anyone who dares defend an edit I made. Thank you so much. I am truly sorry I ever became a registered user. This witch-hunt never happened when I edited anonymously. What a wonderful site. --90TheGeneral09 (talk) 16:24, January 19, 2018 (UTC) January 19, 2018 (UTC)
Ok calm down everyone. Can you tell us where you base the Crenshaw edit on, give us a reference? You can add it using <ref>...</ref>, you can see how it works on other pages. You're a knowledgable and talented editor I feel, I don't want you to get discouraged just starting out and that's what happening a bit right now, we can use people like you here. If you are able to provide a reference of some kind, we'll be happy to unprotect Crenshaw again. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 16:29, January 19, 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Jspoel, you seem like a knowledgeable user and I don't want to scare you away. I am sorry if you feel I am after you, but when there is an edit war it is my duty to intercept. At that point it is not relevant to me who is right and who is wrong, that is for you to decide. DisgustingWastelander (talk) 16:35, January 19, 2018 (UTC)

I've got a few messages to respond to here so bear with me. TO Jspoelstra: I will be glad to tell you that. The Crenshaw edit was based somewhat on in-game observation. The original edit, noting that Crenshaw is a poor soldier and cares more about amusing himself than, well, being a soldier, is obvious in the way he talks and in the way others with dialogue about him at Camp McCarran talk about him. But, it was mainly based on dialogue from Crenshaw himself, and in fact, there is a listed sound file in which Crenshaw says one of the things I referenced. On the Crenshaw page, in that sound file and in the .txt file showing all possible dialogue for Crenshaw- so, in two places- there is a quote from Crenshaw in which he explains how he blew up some toilets at Camp McCarran. He says that he did it for fun, but it turns out that nobody knows how to make a toilet anymore (the factories were all destroyed in the Great War) and the toilets at McCarran that Crenshaw destroyed are pretty much gone for good as a result. Crenshaw admits that the Army probably would have shot him already, except they are so undermanned in the Mojave that they have kept him on.

The quote from Crenshaw, which can be heard and read in the "Notable quotes" section for him and can be read in "PrivateCrenshaw.txt"- the quote that pertains to this most directly- is this:

"Dropped some firecrackers in the toilets too. That was the real bad one for me. Turns out there's no way to replace the toilets now. Toilet company blew up in the War. I think they'd just have shot me if they weren't shorthanded." --90TheGeneral09 (talk) 17:04, January 19, 2018 (UTC)

TO FDekker: I meant to reply to your message before but got distracted. I apologize. Thank you, first of all, for your message and for sparing so much time to share your thoughts with me. I take pride in my knowledge of the games for which I do edits, and in my grammar and spelling. I would be quite disappointed in myself if I didn't write correctly. You are right that disagreements over relevance, verifability, and so on can devolve into edit wars. And you have also gone right to the heart of what I was saying. My core objection in these "edit wars" I have been involved in is exactly as you said. I believe there is an operational standard on this site that holds that someone who reverts an edit is "correct until proven otherwise". Reverting can be just and needed sometimes. But not always. And what this site seems to back is the "always". The powers that be seem to truly assume and believe that anybody who first reverts an edit, anytime, for any reason or none, did the right thing and had good intent. I disagree.

But the trouble is that, being that we are all humans behind our keyboards here, and humans have egos, reverting an edit and then reverting the revert can swiftly and frequently lead us into another edit war. Certainly, I could engage the other person diplomatically, post on their page. But the issues you pointed out, potential reasons as to why someone on here might just revert instead of discussing it, go both ways. They may think they won't get a reply if they post something on my talk page, and I have no more or less reason than they do to believe that of someone else. And I would say that pretty much everyone who has reverted an edit of mine has done so being convinced they were right and figuring I'd see that. Reverting edits is WAY too popular a move on this website, WAY too permitted and endorsed by site administrators. I do not accept it or condone it. And I agree. The discussions pertaining to this thus far on my page have not really reached a satisfactory conclusion for anybody.

I would like to direct you, FDekker, to the posts made by Great Mara. We had quite a "talk", the two of us, over stuff relating to Major Dhatri's page. This person probably is or was in the navy of some country, because MAN do they have some knowledge of how navies operate, command structures they have. Well, here's the thing. I was dealing with the NCR Army and its system. The US Navy in Fallout is utterly dead. Like the rest of the United States government, it is history. The NCR Army is noted to model itself after the old US Army, not the US Navy, and it is noted and documented that naval forces across the world use different words, or words with different meanings, than land-based armies. Throughout or discussion, Great Mara fiercely insisted that it all works like the Navy does it, discussing things only from a naval perspective despite my repeated insistence that it had no relevance to a land-going force like the NCR Army. My point is that Great Mara was 100% convinced they were right in forcing Navy knowledge into an Army situation, and acted accordingly. That is just one example of someone else on this site barging onto something I do and assuming they are in the right. It's a difficult situation with no clear solution, but I appreciate very much your willingness to talk to me about it. --90TheGeneral09 (talk) 17:19, January 19, 2018 (UTC)

TO DisgustingWastelander: Thank you for posting your brief message. Always good to hear from someone else on this site. I have had a challenging time on this site so far. A lot of needless and unpleasant clashes with a lot of users. But a few people have been neutral or even friendly, and some I have been quite glad to interact with. I have objected strongly to some things I feel are wrong and unfair about this site. I have run into some users who I may just not get along with. That happens. This has been quite a shock, some of it anyway, because this site is different from Wikipedia and Wikiquote. Reverting of edits, and the assumption that anyone who does that first did it for a good reason, is not the rule there. That is not their way. I got used to that, and this has been startling. I know that not you, for one, are not trying to scare me away. You are doing your job as a neutral party and trying to keep things going. I would be foolish if I thought you didn't have a duty to intervene when edit wars happen, regardless of how they started. Somebody has to keep the peace. Unfortunately, as someone who often winds up as one of the disputing parties in these edit wars and such, I am not really the best person to ask who is right or wrong either! Of course I'm gonna think I'm right. --90TheGeneral09 (talk) 17:25, January 19, 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I unprotected the page again, you can add your content with your reference to the dialogue file please. You can use PrivateCrenshaw.txt#? to refer to it (see how it's done on the first reference on the Benny page. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 17:28, January 19, 2018 (UTC)

Although resolved, I feel I should give you a response. Personally, I do not think your edit was a bad one or justifiable of a revert, certainly there were points that could have been up for debate. There were solid points which I could confirm from the dialogue text. However, as was pointed out to you before you need to seek consensus with the other user, not just revert them back. If consensus cannot be reached, a mediator (as agreed by one side or both) is free to come in and assist in reaching that. I will be speaking to the original reverter too as I don't feel the original action was justified.

That said, with regards to my reverting you twice on a valid edit: I gave a reason for reverting, which was policy that has been explained to you before. A message was left on your talkpage by Dekker alongside that. We gave you avenues to discuss the matter, yet you decided to revert again, which is a little disappointing. I then rolled it back again and left a further message on your talkpage. The only response that garnered from yourself was a second revert from yourself. As for "so your side of the edit war wins." I had no side and was remaining neutral on the matter and upholding policy. If you want to help improve, talk to others, we aren't ogres and most people will discuss things with you. If they don't, that is where admins and moderators can step in to ensure fairness. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 20:43, January 19, 2018 (UTC)

TO Sakarette: Thank you for the message, and I understand your points. I continue to say what I have said before. Seeking consensus is all well and good, but I find it wrong that I, the user whose edit got reverted in X or Y situation, am burdened with the expectation that I must seek consensus before doing anything when the user who first reverted my edit had to do absolutely nothing of the sort. I must be a diplomat; the other user must click a button. This procedure is grossly unfair to the second user in any situation where one user reverts the edit of another, because it assumes that the first user had a good and valid reason for reverting the edit, which they may well not have. However, I suppose that someone has to act diplomatically between two people. I would just prefer if the rules of the site required more thoughtfulness on the first user's part, is all.
Respectfully, what avenues were provided? All I know is that if anyone ever reverts an edit I make, for ANY reason, I am under strict orders NOT to revert the edit. The burden lies on me to open diplomatic channels with that other user, and we absolutely must together agree before I do anything else. I feel that is overly bureaucratic and requires too much of me. As I said, the first user needed to click a button. I have to assemble a panel of Congressmen. I share your disappointment, though not in the same way, perhaps. I affirm again that I am not looking for any fights at all. But I believe that this site's leadership is FAR too permissive of the first user reverting an edit. I would be glad to talk to others. But the thing is that reverting an edit comes across as a hostile act to me, especially if there is zero explanation given, and again, I am bothered by how common and permitted reverting edits is on this site. As for that comment- I got hotheaded and I apologize. The site admins are doing a job and I respect that. But I believe certain aspects of site policy need to be changed. --90TheGeneral09 (talk) 02:17, January 20, 2018 (UTC)
TO Jspoelstra: Thank you. I had a heck of a time trying to get the References thing properly set up, but Paladin117 showed up and helped me out with that. I am going to need to get used to the method for inserting references, but I think that if I can learn to do that, it will be a big help for verifying edits I make that reference particular lines of dialogue for that character. --90TheGeneral09 (talk) 01:54, January 20, 2018 (UTC)
It's not that hard with the references, now you've seen it done by Paladin, give it another go yourself and before you know it, it will come naturally for you I'm sure. Also, if you format content in a way you haven't done before and aren't sure about it, check other pages for examples or browse policy to see if you find what you're looking for there. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 02:10, January 20, 2018 (UTC)

Finally got a break and came back to see a lot. Saka left me a message on my talkpage and I replied, but I thought I'd also post it here for you as well. Message: Hey sorry been too tired to be around lately. The other night when I made the revert I looked at the .txt file and missed the referenced part somehow. I then went to bed because I had just got off work and was just glancing by. Today I didn't check back here till before work when I saw everything that happened. I didn't reply though because I was on Mobile waiting to head inside. I can see what I missed though, and it appears everything got sorted. Sorry about the absence, being a Prison guard steals a lot of my time. (Level3Rogue) Xa3 (talk) 04:51, January 20, 2018 (UTC)

TO TheGeneral (and everyone else, actually): I was at a conference yesterday so I didn't have a chance to read all this before now. First of all: I absolutely agree with you that we are too quick to revert edits. I think we should rethink the consequences of reverting and how it's sometimes not the right solution. Rather, reverting is not a solution at all. I've actually tried talking about this on our Discord chat a few times, but I think you have given a very strong impulse to continue that conversation.
What I propose is that those edits that are obviously vandalism or bullshit are reverted. And if someone reverts that revert, leave that person a warning about edit warring on their talk page, and then revert that revert of your revert. The part about leaving a message is an important one. If the edits are not obviously vandalism or bullshit, then don't revert it, even if you disagree! Nukapedia can live with one page being perhaps slightly wrong for an hour. That's not a disaster. At the moment that two editors disagree, there is no correct revision, and you should just stop reverting and start talking. And if the other doesn't respond, just add a {{cite}} or {{verify}} or something. And if you protect the page, just protect it without reverting anything; doing otherwise would be picking sides.
I think that what I've described so far is (or at least should be) common practice for anyone (of staff) who reverts anything. (And maybe it should become policy.) The key problem is how you recognise what is and what isn't "obvious" vandalism or bullshit. From the edit wars involving TheGeneral I think I can conclude we tend to forget one thing: The history of the editor who made the edit. TheGeneral seems to respond very well to initiating conversation, so why not start a conversation if you find his edit dubious? The same goes for any other editor who you have seen has made good edits in the past; those edits tell you that he at least has good intentions, so why not talk about it and perhaps have him learn something (or maybe you can learn something yourself).
I think that having the ability to revert something gives you the responsibility (or rather the duty) to use it to improve Nukapedia, and one aspect of that is improving its editors, and that happens by using more dialogue. Disagreement is never a good reason to revert. I think a change in guidelines and/or policy is in place.
- FDekker talk 11:13, January 20, 2018 (UTC)

Saka told me it might be more appropriate to continue my part of the conversation in a forum post, so I have created a forum post. It's definitely nothing official, but your input would be appreciated.
- FDekker talk 14:49, January 20, 2018 (UTC)
To FDekker: Thank you again for your message. It's appreciated. Your response and commentary are reasonable, and once again goes right to the heart of what I have been trying to say. I am not looking to just get to "win" or be proven "right" here. I want to have a fair chance to do my editing. I want to argue for anything that has a good prospect of making this website better. I believe that while reverting should not be looked at as never acceptable, it should be revised and seen as more of a last resort than a first. Too many times since I registered and became active on here, I've had somebody revert an edit I made without any explanation, and at least once, an edit was reverted because it did not have sources cited, but I had no idea how to cite references at the time and did not even know that was a requirement. Wikipedia and its component sites, like Wikiquote, have been successful for years because they have a well-developed and fairly-enforced set of rules and regulations. Reverting edits is seen differently there, as I have pointed out.
On Wikipedia, you are not supposed to just revert an edit unless you have a good and specific reason- like vandalism or BS edits. To be fair, they fully allow reverting of unsourced added content as well, but this is also a smaller and somewhat different site, so maybe we shouldn't do every single thing as Wikipedia does. But the main thing that they do right is they don't bite the newcomers- or at least, that's official policy- and they don't regard reverting an edit as quite so casual a means of response. I do believe that the ability for any user to edit, even revert edits, must stay. That is a big part of what makes any site like this so great, is the fact that anyone can access it and have a chance to improve it. Overall, I agree with many of your comments and expressed ideas, and I thank you for taking the time to share them. I have let my temper flare up some and come across as combative at times. I'm sure of that. But that is not my goal. I am trying very much to be reasonable and to be a benefit to this site, not a problem. I can't promise that I will post on that forum today, but I will try to set aside time soon to share some thoughts there. I agree, that forum will be a good place to continue the conversation on this issue. --90TheGeneral09 (talk) 20:55, January 20, 2018 (UTC)
I've wanted to address this issue for some time now, so I have to thank you too. I understand that you're not an "extremist" who insists that reverting is evil; I don't think there's anyone who would accuse you of that. I think Janaschi had a good response on the forum about the core issue of the problem: (I think that) the root issue is that you were given less respect that you should have been given because of your newcomer status and the previous edit wars. It's also the subject you pointed out in your second paragraph. I think the superficial reason your edits were reverted was because they were difficult, in that they were sometimes subjective and prosaic, and such content is hard to quantify. In a way, you form a challenge to the status quo, and while your edits might be good, it's easier to revert them because the article wasn't bad without it. Reverting such content feels safer than risking having them defile the page.
With regards to the forum post: Take your time. Well, not weeks of time, but take your time to collect your thoughts so you'll be able to write down a cohesive response that properly represents your position. That's obviously desirable over a hastily written response that barely conveys what you think.
- FDekker talk 22:26, January 20, 2018 (UTC)


I see you're giving it another go with the references, nice. You can shorten your reference link somewhat. For example on Hsu you can substitute VMS08ColonelHsuTopic011 with 34. Every line in the dialogue file has its own number, you can see it in the last column of the dialogue file. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 17:08, January 20, 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate the message. I have spent a couple hours today working on adding references, and I have definitely learned some things about how to create one. Several pages now have completely functional references set up, including some that previously had no references. There are definitely a number of technical details that go into this, but it's not impossible to do. --90TheGeneral09 (talk) 20:57, January 20, 2018 (UTC)

Re: Military CapitalizationEdit

Thanks for approaching me!
Our editing guidelines dictate that we should follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MoS) wherever our own guidelines do not cover something. This section of the MoS says that "wherever a military term is an accepted proper name (...) it should be capitalized" and "the words for types of military unit (army, navy, fleet, company, etc.) do not require capitalization if they do not appear in a proper name." These rules are of course also applied to Wikipedia's page on the US Army, where they have sentences such as "The army was initially led by men who (...)" and "The army fought numerous pitched battles". Therefore, I think that the capitalisation I applied to the page is correct.
- FDekker talk 21:53, January 22, 2018 (UTC)

My initial attempt at replying was deleted because of an editing conflict. I am sorry I did not save my copy, because now I get to do this all over again. All right. I have confirmed that is indeed the case on the Wikipedia page on the United States Army. But, this does not match up with the respective pages on the United States Navy, United States Coast Guard, and the United States Air Force. The United States Marine Corps page also appears to capitalize "Marines", "Marine" and "the Marines/the Marine Corps". True, the United States Army is most directly related to the NCR Army, but I find it strange that Wikipedia apparently lower-cases "the Army" as per their regulations, but not "the Navy", "the Air Force", "the Coast Guard", or "the Marines"- at least so far as I can see. --90TheGeneral09 (talk) 22:06, January 22, 2018 (UTC)
Wikia manages edit conflicts awfully. When you get an edit conflict, it will show the current version of the page in the editor, but if you scroll down you'll find another text area containing the version of the page you tried to submit.
Anyway, just like Nukapedia, Wikipedia isn't perfect, and I think it's just that no one bothered to correct the capitalisation. At least on the US Navy page, if you scroll down far enough you'll find that the capitalisation becomes inconsistent. (Well, not anymore because I just corrected it on Wikipedia. Let's see if they revert it :P.) Therefore, I think that the MoS should still be followed, even if Wikipedia is somewhat inconsistent in its application.
- FDekker talk 22:26, January 22, 2018 (UTC)

Chinese assault rifle Edit

The reason I removed your changes to the Chinese assault rifle and not This Machine is because of wiki policy. Unless a developer states that a real world weapon was the basis of the in game weapon, its not mentioned no matter how similar they are. In this case, a Fallout new Vegas developer (J. E. Sawyer) stated that the M1 Garand was the inspiration for the battle rifle and this machine, but at no point did any of the Fallout 3 developers say they based the Chinese assault rifle on an AK series rifle. Aiden4017 (talk) 23:18, January 2, 2019 (UTC)

    • Fine, then. I am not gonna get into a fight over the policy but I disagree with it in this instance. It has been over a decade. I doubt we will get this official statement on the Type 93's design anytime soon. Probably never. But anybody can tell what it mechanically has to be related to, whatever wiki policy is. I've made my gripe and I will abide by the policy. --90TheGeneral09 (talk) 23:32, January 2, 2019 (UTC)


Only proper nouns are supposed to be capitalized on this wiki. A villa and police station are neither. Just because I just noticed it is no excuse for keeping it incorrect. Not every editor has omniscient knowledge of every page on the wiki. Great Mara (talk) 19:40, January 20, 2019 (UTC)

Read your talkpage... Great Mara (talk) 19:47, January 20, 2019 (UTC)
If you feel harassed, that's really not my problem. Especially when you exacerbate the situation by reverting grammatical errors that should be corrected. I check over all edits I see in the recent changes, I do not personally follow after you. You've been here for months and should at least know the basic editing guidelines by now. Great Mara (talk) 19:53, January 20, 2019 (UTC)
So even if it is the name of a specific location, and is capitalized *in the game* it is not to be capitalized on this wiki? And if you KNEW that was policy and your duty as a Patroller is to enforce it, why did you not tell me immediately? I would have disagreed but still understood. I am not here to violate policy. You're a Patroller, and how you behave and how you deal with complaints IS "your problem". Assume good faith. THAT is a rule, is it not? You are here far more full-time than I am. I have been around a few months, yes, but I'm also gone for weeks or months at a time, or here one day and then gone a month. I am aware of basic editing guidelines but I am not aware of every detail of Wiki policy. If YOUR duty is to enforce it YOU should know that not everyone knows policy to the letter like you apparently do. --90TheGeneral09 (talk) 20:00, January 20, 2019 (UTC)
I have read my own talk page, thanks so much for reminding me. I even read the part where you were fighting hard to introduce naval terminology into an argument over the NCR Army, a land warfare force that bases itself off the old U.S. Army, much as the NCR is based off the old United States. Just remember naval divisions and army divisions have nothing to do with each other. Thanks for your time. --90TheGeneral09 (talk) 20:02, January 20, 2019 (UTC)
It is not other editors' duty to hold your hand and inform you of everything. That is your responsibility and no one else's. Ignorance of the rules is no excuse. And just remember, same structures, different name. And frankly I find the little passive aggressive quip there at the end rather funny for someone who wants to talk about combative behavior, especially following up that little "please and thank you" version of an 'eff you you left in your edit summary earlier. We're done here. Great Mara (talk) 20:09, January 20, 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I gathered that. You have tried extremely hard to make that apparent. Yes, ignorance of the law is no excuse. But this is a wiki and not the civil or criminal court system. We can all relax a little on here. It's a Fallout wiki. Remember? You know a game, meant to be fun? We are not all stern-faced judges last I checked, or at least we're not supposed to be. What do you mean same structures, different name? At any rate, I apologize and withdraw the "please and thank you" that you took to be snide and disrespectful. I intended the "please and thank you" as a joke. It was in no way intended to be as severely offensive as you took it. My fault for not being more clear- on the internet, there is no tone of voice in the text. Why the angry finality of "we're done here"? Are we? I don't think we are. You're not an Admin so you don't have the final word. I am not forcing you to comment on MY page, so if "we're done here" you can stop talking to me. --90TheGeneral09 (talk) 20:16, January 20, 2019 (UTC)

RE: Complaint Edit

Thanks for contacting me.

A patroller is simply a user that has the ability to mark edits as "patrolled" to indicate that the edit has been checked by an experienced editor, and a patroller can undo edits a bit quicker than others. Patrollers are not admins or moderators.

When you disagree with someone, you should refrain from reverting their edits and asking a question in the edit summary. Instead, if you have a question for the other editor, disagree with them, or if you want to know why an edit was made, it's a way better idea to leave a message on their talk page and talk it out there, especially if you are not familiar with the rules of the wiki. It's good that you have decided to do that now, but ideally you should do that before the situation escalates.

In this case, Great Mara is correct to change the capitalisation of "Villa" to "villa". You can verify this in our editing guidelines. I would recommend that you familiarise yourself with those.

If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask them.
- FDekker talk 20:20, January 20, 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I will bear this information in mind in the future. Much as is done in the military, I don't make the rules around here, and I aim to abide by them even if I disagree with some of them. My goal here has always been to help, not to harm. I love the Fallout universe and want to make the wiki about it better. I should start to change aspects of my work on this wiki, however. I'm not as new as I used to be, and besides, if I DO care about this wiki and improving it, then I should work to inform myself of the laws around these parts so I can better stay within them. That's basic good citizenship and I will honestly admit I have not always lived up to that. Good intentions are noble, but someone who aims to abide by the law should know it. Even now I've had incidents where I acted without thinking, or where I should have known wiki policy but did not. I am only on here part-time, but I will look up the wiki's guidelines and become more familiar with them. Later, once I am aware of that, I might be interested in learning how to advocate for changes in policy. For now, this is plenty for me to think about. I will work to make sure I know editing guidelines and to talk things out on a discussion page first before reverting edits in the future. Thank you again. You have always been courteous and reasonable, and I greatly appreciate it. --90TheGeneral09 (talk) 20:27, January 20, 2019 (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+