FANDOM


Italic titleEdit

What exactly is the point of the Italic title template? It's of limited use, not used on many pages, and doesn't really save much space. Paladin117>>iff bored; 00:52, June 9, 2016 (UTC)

Hi. It is more convenient and more simple to use than to use the full DISPLAYTITLE magic word. If you do not wish for the template to be used, I apologize and will revert my edits, and you can delete the template page. PapiDimmi (talk) 00:56, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
I guess I can check in with others to see what they think about it before making any hasty decisions. Paladin117>>iff bored; 01:11, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
All right. I think it should be used, since it is a lot easier to use than the DISPLAYTITLE magic word. It is also used on many other wikis, including Wikipedia. PapiDimmi (talk) 01:13, June 9, 2016 (UTC)

Re: QuestionEdit

Yes, it is redundant. But it's a required section per the character layout guidelines of the wiki. http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_Wiki:Article_layout_guideline/Character_article Great Mara (talk) 16:19, October 7, 2016 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for your response. I think that the rule should be to have an “Appearances” section only when the subject appears in materials not defined in the infobox. PapiDimmi (talk) 16:22, October 7, 2016 (UTC)

Re:QuestionEdit

Because one of the admins felt that some web browsers would have compatibility issues and thus made it so every page uses the xhtml break tags. That is now the standard format that the pages follow. Great Mara (talk) 01:23, October 24, 2016 (UTC)

I doubt it’d cause any issues, but thanks for explaining. PapiDimmi (talk) 01:24, October 24, 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your edit warringEdit

1) You know very well the game it subtitled and that is what is used on this wiki. Do not change quotations from the game based on your personal opinions. 2) It isn't necessary to change, and frankly comes off as more than a little bit of an attempt at censorship on your part. 3) First came the undo to the quote so I could actually see enough of an edit window to edit the page. Then while I was editing the page to be within wiki standards you came up for another round of edit warring and said corrections were lost in the edit conflict. That's on you.

And frankly, if you don't want to be met with "aggressive attitudes," then stop making a pest of yourself by doing things you should know very well not to do. You've been here since June of last year, you should know very well not to edit war (yet you did, 5 times) and how quotations are handled. Now if you'll excuse me, I have things to do besides having the hell annoyed out of me. Great Mara (talk) 22:54, January 11, 2017 (UTC)

  1. Yes, I know, and like I said, subtitles aren’t exactly the be-all-end-all; the subtitles are very often incorrect and were presumably not written by the same people who wrote the script. Also, like I said, we’re just talking about punctuation. “Oh, right. The park. With you. Because I want to get pregnant AGAIN.” That is four sentences, which could easily be changed to just one sentence, which is much easier to read. In the English language, pauses mid-sentence are represented by ellipses (…) and commas (,), not full stops (.).
  2. Censorship? I changed it because it’s redundant; the sentence is verbose at its current state. Tell me, would you ask your mate “Would you like to partake in the act of driving a motorized vehicle in order to walk into a building so that we could subsequently pay paper currency in order to watch a motion picture on a large projection screen?” or would you say “Wanna go to the movies?” When talking about someone becoming pregnant and having a child, the phrase “after the two had sex” is redundant, since we know that the woman had to have sex in order to become pregnant in the first place.
  3. I was not edit warring. I didn’t spam the same edits in an effort to override your revisions that undid mine; I made two different revisions in an effort to improve the article in different ways. When you undid that, I posted on your talk page.
Edit warring is repeatedly undoing someone’s edits in an attempt to be the last one standing, which I haven’t done. I’ve made several different edits that you’ve undone—not edit warring. I don’t want to edit war or vandalize; I just want to improve articles. If you want me to learn about my mistakes and be a better editor here on the Fallout wiki, harassing me certainly isn’t the option. PapiDimmi (talk) 23:07, January 11, 2017 (UTC)
Subtitles are actually taken directly from the scripts for the voice actors, you can still see the actor notes if you view them in the creation kit (how to pronounce certain words, how the character is feeling in certain places). Voice actors going off script is extremely common. It doesn't matter if you dislike how the writers wrote that line, if that's how it's in game, that's how it's staying in the article. We don't even use the <em> tag here (I didn't even that existed). Also, edit warring is reverting anyone that was reverting you, which you have done multiple times tonight alone. Paladin117>>iff bored; 23:13, January 11, 2017 (UTC)
  1. I didn’t know that, so my apologies; however, it’s not just the lines that are frequently different; often, there are punctuation, spelling, and grammatical errors in the subtitles, so I don’t think the subtitles should be the be-all-end-all source to follow when it comes to merely punctuation.
  2. If this wiki does not use the <em> tag, what do you use? I don’t recommend using all-capital letters for emphasis, since it’s difficult to read, uncommon, and frowned upon. Italics is most commonly used for emphasis, but bold is also used sometimes.
  3. I reverted your revision merely once, whilst explaining why. I didn’t do it just to revert to my revision; I wanted to explain the thoughts behind it. Edit warring is defined as multiple disagreeing editors revert one another’s edits in an effort to try to have the article result in their edit succeeding. I undid your revision once to explain my revision, which you then undid as well. That’s not edit warring; however, I do apologize for my questionable revisions.
All I wanted to do is help the wiki by improving its articles, and I’ve learnt from my mistakes and will not repeat the same ones. Like I said, explaining what I did wrong in an effort to prevent me doing the same mistakes in the future rather than reverting my edits without explaining yourself and being rude to me would’ve been much appreciated. I’ve read the policies of this wiki but haven’t found any information regarding the issues such as the emphasis problem. The problem still stands in the article, and I stand by my argument, which is not to use capital letters for emphasis. PapiDimmi (talk) 23:22, January 11, 2017 (UTC)

Quest infobox editEdit

Let me turn that around. Can you explain why you changed an important template, without an edit summary, to a state where it gives an error on all quest page icons? Jspoel Speech Jspoel 22:01, January 28, 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, edit warring is the act of multiple users reverting one another’s revisions. That’s not what I did whatsoever.
Secondly, it did not give me an error when I tested it. I thought that the additional pixel definitions were unnecessary.
What’s the point of the “30x30px” variable? PapiDimmi (talk) 22:05, January 28, 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure why both pixel sizes are needed. A template expert created the template and it's all working. Size looks ok to me, doesn't need changing. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 22:31, January 28, 2017 (UTC)
I’ve removed the “30x30px” part, and the template works exactly the same as it did before. It’s an unnecessary parameter. The error was probably due to me replacing “45x45px” with “45px.”PapiDimmi (talk) 22:35, January 28, 2017 (UTC)
Appears to work. If you change templates like that better first try it out in a sandbox. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 22:39, January 28, 2017 (UTC)
I will. PapiDimmi (talk) 22:25, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

Because it wasn't necessaryEdit

They should only be used to prevent confusion in a complicated list. There words "and" and "or" already delineate the end of the list. Furthermore, considering other users are already doing this unnecessarily and being told not to should be a big clue. And the revert function is to save time, especially when I'm already busy in the middle of working on another project. Undos are generally how I bring attention to vandals. Such as the Kelly page just earlier. Great Mara (talk) 22:08, January 28, 2017 (UTC)

They should only be used to prevent confusion in a complicated list. There words "and" and "or" already delineate the end of the list.
This means that this wiki sometimes uses Oxford commas and sometimes not. That makes it inconsistent, and that’s not good for any professional work, like a wiki. That’s like having half of the articles written in American English and the other half in British English—and maybe a few articles written in Japanese for good measure.
Furthermore, considering other users are already doing this unnecessarily and being told not to should be a big clue.
Yes, it would, indeed—if I had known about that. I don’t keep track of everything that happens on this wiki.
And the revert function is to save time, especially when I'm already busy in the middle of working on another project.
The revert function was invented so that users with special rights can easily undo vandalism without any hassle. If a user makes twenty vandalism revisions in one article, instead of having to manually undo all of them by finding the right revision in the page history, administrators, moderators, and users with rollback rights can simply press one button. The rollback function takes effect immediately, which means that you can’t include a custom edit summary.
You should use the undo function when undoing revisions that are not vandalism (be it intentional or non-intentional) but mistakes. The undo function allows you to use a custom edit summary for a reason, and that is to explain why you’re undoing an edit. It’s incredibly frustrating when an administrator undoes your revision and you don’t know why. PapiDimmi (talk) 22:15, January 28, 2017 (UTC)

Wiki's nameEdit

I don't think it's possible to name the wiki Nukapedia (as in fallout.wikia.com/Nukapedia), but I wouldn't want it anyway. People will always search first for Fallout Wiki, long before Nukapedia on a search engine. Nukapedia is a name for the wiki we chose a few years back, when we (sort of) had to rename it. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 23:47, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible. You can change it by contacting Fandom staff here. “Fallout Wiki” would still result in this wiki in search engines. It’s pretty confusing that the wiki is named Nukapedia, but it’s actually named Fallout Wiki.
Alternatively, you could change the sitename to “Nukapedia: The Fallout Wiki,” which would give you the best of both worlds. PapiDimmi (talk) 23:57, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

Re:ReasonEdit

There is no need for it. At all. The search will already auto-complete to the right page. Even if a fragment of the latter parts of the page are typed. Unused redirects are clean-up items on any wiki. Great Mara (talk) 05:05, January 31, 2017 (UTC)

What was with the sudden creation of all these redirects? Also, creating redirects that begin exactly the same as the page (like "He's a Demon") and alternate casings of the same thing ("He's a Devil" and "He's a devil") are 100% pointless as the search engine sees them as exactly the same thing. Paladin117>>iff bored; 05:22, January 31, 2017 (UTC)
All right, my apologies. PapiDimmi (talk) 05:27, January 31, 2017 (UTC)

He's a DemonEdit

You added it without explanation. I don't believe point-commas are used in the song, and "Sweet Caroline" should be with the apostrophes, (see the Thriller songs on wikipedia). Jspoel Speech Jspoel 15:00, January 31, 2017 (UTC)
I’m not sure why you’re posting this in an unrelated section, but so be it.
Here, I’ll explain my edits that you reverted:
  1. I changed this because using quotation marks around song names is not used on this wiki. There are plenty of guidelines that Wikipedia follows but Nukapedia doesn’t. If you do want to use quotation marks, it makes no sense, since song titles aren’t enclosed in quotation marks anywhere else on the wiki. By this logic, there should be quotation marks around “He’s a Demon, He’s a Devil, He’s a Doll.” If you enclose some song titles but not others, the wiki becomes inconsistent, which is bad. (By the way, you’re saying that apostrophes should be used here, but it looks like you’re mixing apostrophes with quotation marks, as you reverted it back to quotation marks.)
  2. The comma edits were fixing some comma splices, although since comma splices are used in the title of the song itself, I don’t think that using comma splices in the lyrics is that bad anyway. (By the way, they are called semicolons, not point-commas.)
  3. The last two things I changed were adding a comma to “He drives me crazy but he's cute” and a question mark to “Why do I love a guy I ought to shoot.” These are objective edits. This means that not using these punctuation marks are incorrect no matter what, whilst the above two edits are pretty subjective, depending on the style guide and guidelines. PapiDimmi (talk) 15:34, January 31, 2017 (UTC)

Great WarEdit

Restart the discussion then, look it up in the forums. We decided to write it like that, and as long as not decided by community otherwise, it stays like that. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 16:10, January 31, 2017 (UTC)

Like I have explained on your talk page, in English grammar, “war” is not capitalized unless used within the name of the war itself. If this wiki uses a style guide that doesn’t follow this grammar rule, that’s fine, but I’d like to read this discussion.
The forums are not used anymore, so I’m unable to search them, let alone post in them. If you mean the discussions, I did search but was unable to find anything. Can you give me the link to this discussion?

Edit: Apparently the forums are still used anymore. That’s strange, considering how we have the discussions now. PapiDimmi (talk) 16:13, January 31, 2017 (UTC); edited 16:15, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

Here it is. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 16:39, January 31, 2017 (UTC)
“As ‘war’ isn’t a proper noun on its own, I think lower case is correct; however if the term was ‘Pre-Great War’ then capitalisation would be correct.”
That’s one guy who was correct. This wiki does have some strange rules when it comes to titling though, one of the main ones being that many article titles are plural and many are singular. It’s inconsistent, and singular titles are used on most wikis, like Wikipedia. It’s better to use singular titles, as they improve wiki link use (e.g., This is a [[chem]] instead of This is a [[Chems|chem]]), for one. PapiDimmi (talk) 16:44, January 31, 2017 (UTC)

SPECIALEdit

You're adding unnecessary links to the overview SPECIAL pages. Two lines below the link you made, SPECIAL is already linked. We don't need two so close together. Also, Special is an unneeded redirect. We'll always use SPECIAL, never Special. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 18:09, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

Articles should be linked the first time they’re mentioned in an article. I checked the articles, and I can’t see SPECIAL being linked two lines below. In the Fallout 4 SPECIAL article, it linked to Fallout 4 primary statistics, not SPECIAL.

Additionally, making it bold is incorrect, as the title of articles should be bold only if the full title is mentioned. PapiDimmi (talk) 18:11, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

The SPECIAL two lines below is linked in the template, it's been there for I don't know how many years, and we're keeping it like that. The bold rule you apply isn't our bold rule. Also one overview pages, first time the page's subject is mentioned, it becomes bold. You're seeing it all over the place like that here. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 18:21, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I didn’t notice that.
I’ve undone my edits now. Can you link me to your rule about boldface iteration? PapiDimmi (talk) 18:23, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
Here you have it. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 18:29, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I won’t repeat my mistake. PapiDimmi (talk) 13:45, February 4, 2017 (UTC)

Deleted templateEdit

I now see I deleted it with the comment it's the same template as the section template, but I actually meant it's (almost) the same as the {{stub}} template. That one also asks to expand the article, be it more general. It's already crawling with these kind of templates on the wiki; we need to reduce them (also to make the pages look more finished), not add more to them. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 15:41, February 15, 2017 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks. PapiDimmi (talk) 03:02, February 16, 2017 (UTC)

TalkpagesEdit

What part of not editing talkpages that belong to other users is unclear to you? It is not your place to remove things from my talkpage, Jspoel's talkpage, or yours are per this wiki's policy. You have some serious fucking boundary issues, you know that? Start minding them. Great Mara (talk) 06:06, February 18, 2017 (UTC)

You need to calm down. I did not edit Jspoelstra’s talk page; I undid someone’s revision because they were writing in Russian on an English website.
If you’re going to undo my revision, the least you can do is explain why. PapiDimmi (talk) 06:17, February 18, 2017 (UTC)
Policy extract: "Do not edit other people's comments: Editing or removing other peoples' remarks in the forum, on discussion pages, or their personal user page is considered bad behavior. Post your own thoughts on the talk pages, and leave others to their own."
Unless people start to write in Russian on the mainspace then you should not revert those edits. You also cannot edit a user's personal space unless you are leaving a message, reverting vandalism, or removing content that goes against the rules.
Going against those is generally frowned upon, considered an invasion of privacy and will get your edit reverted (as Mara did). --YOD ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ 08:59, February 18, 2017 (UTC)
That message was a response I asked on the Russian wiki. You could have known it was all good if you had taken some time to investigate. Firstly the header, that was in English and easy to understand. Secondly, you could have pasted the message in google translate and understood what was in it. Lastly, you could have clicked on the user and seen it's an editor who has already got a good history/credit here with the images he uploads and the interwiki. All small efforts. You're just starting here and you're making a too many waves right now. When I started out I did simpler/non controversial edits just to get the hang of it and gain some confidence, step by step. You're going too fast with making rather high-profile edits like new templates/changing current ones, reverting talkpage edits and similar. I'd slow down a bit and build up some credit with less controversial work. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 15:23, February 18, 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I’m PapíDimmi, not Sherlock Holmes. I did not edit your talk page; I undid a revision because it was in Russian and not English. One is supposed to undo vandalism, and this is what I considered vandalism. As you may imagine, a user going through a talk page and finding a message in Russian will likely be confused. I didn’t know the context of this discussion, anyway, as… well, there was no context. I’m not going to go into detective mode to find the source of the discussion. If only this wiki were like most other wikis and did not crosspost talk page messages between talk pages.
Great Mara, a rational reply with a proper explanation rather than mindless insults would be appreciated. Hopefully, this complication is concluded now. PapiDimmi (talk) 17:38, February 18, 2017 (UTC)

UntitledEdit

What part of leave talkpages that don't belong to you alone is fucking unclear to you? Leave my talkpage alone. Next I will be reporting you for your harassment. Do not touch it again. Great Mara (talk) 07:02, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

You are making your talk page full of inconsistency and formatting errors. Since the latest post isn’t titled or signed, it looks like I posted it, which I didn’t. Can you please explain why you are reverting my revisions?
Also, please title your posts. PapiDimmi (talk) 07:03, February 19, 2017 (UTC)
It's being reverted because you have no business touching it. You've been told not to touch other users' talkpages multiple times now. You are now edit warring over MY fucking talkpage. Keep your hands off. NOW. Great Mara (talk) 07:08, February 19, 2017 (UTC)
Here is what your talk page looks like. The latest post has no title and no signature, and most of the text is surrounded in a box due to an unnecessary space in the beginning of the paragraph.
Additionally, your talk page is full of inconsistent spacing in the headings.
If you would explain why you are reverting my revisions rather than childishly insulting me, that would be very much appreciated. PapiDimmi (talk) 07:10, February 19, 2017 (UTC)
I don't give a flying fuck what it looks like. Did I give you permission to screw around on MY talkpage? No? Do not touch it. This marks how many times saying it now? Great Mara (talk) 07:11, February 19, 2017 (UTC)
An editor’s job is to improve a wiki. I objectively improved your talk page by fixing multiple errors. You’re arguing with me, but for what? Instead of all this, you could’ve explained what was wrong with my revision. PapiDimmi (talk) 07:14, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

(Papi, how many times have you been warned about edit warring? I've honestly lost count. A space in a header or a line break don't count as errors and I don't know what "guidelines set in place by the administrators" you're referring to. The only ones related to the user talk pages are do not edit others' post (which you did), sign your posts (which Rene did, even if a weird signature), and don't delete things (which was only done by accident due to the edit war). Why don't you actually listen to the admins' warnings? Paladin117>>iff bored; 07:31, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

Look at this screenshot. Here you can see some of the errors on Great Mara’s talk page.
  1. The first paragraph is in a box due to an unnecessary space at the beginning thereof.
  2. It has no title.
  3. It has no signature. The user who created the post did sign his name, but there is no date.
Those are the rules I am talking about; always sign and title your posts. These errors make it hard to read, understand, and edit the talk page. I don’t understand how you and Great Mara think that they’re acceptable. PapiDimmi (talk) 07:33, February 19, 2017 (UTC)
Box is an odd choice, but not really an error. Not a single rule requires the use of a title, it's just common. Dates are commonly overlooked, especially by newer users. If Mara wishes to correct these "errors", then he can go ahead, but I don't see how this affects any other users. And did you seriously edit the template in my response 5 seconds after being told to stop editing others' responses? Paladin117>>iff bored; 07:43, February 19, 2017 (UTC)
I thought that was an indentation error. Sorry.
Anyway, posts should be signed, and this is not signed. That is an error.
This discussion is obviously not going anywhere, and I am tired of arguing, so we’ll end it here. PapiDimmi (talk) 08:40, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

HiroshimaEdit

Why have you reverted the removal of the deletion tag without explaining why especially after several months what amounts to a 3:1 vote to retain the page. I even put a well thought out arguement for retention on the talk back, so your wordless reversion makes it personally frustrating for me.

In the name of fairness I will give you a couple of days to make an argument on the pages talk page for why it should be deleted (beyond what you have written in the deletion reason) before I pull the tag back off. One of the patrollers might decide to do it anyway. Sakaratte (talk) 08:18, February 23, 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Sakaratte. I apologize; I did not see the conversation on Talk:Hiroshima.
I think that the article should be deleted because Hiroshima is a real-life city, and all the article does is describe the real-life city, which is up to Wikipedia, not Nukapedia.
Here is an example: Hand sanitizer is a real-life invention, and if a character in a Fallout game mentions hand sanitizer, one would not create an article about hand sanitizer on the Fallout wiki, correct? I think the article is irrelevant, since nothing it describes is exclusive to the Fallout universe. Just because the city was mentioned in a Fallout game does not mean that it should have its own article.
Nagasaki is another article that is completely unnecessary; the only information the article has is “Nagasaki is mentioned in Fallout 4 during the intro.” This is very trivial information that does not deserve its own article; you can just create a “Trivia” section in the Fallout 4 article and mention it there. PapiDimmi (talk) 08:25, February 23, 2017 (UTC)
This is pretty much your initial reasoning no? It isn't without merit and I did take this into consideration when cast my initial opinion to retain the article. Like I said I want this on the articles talk page so that it is open to the community to discuss, in the appropriate place for it to be had.
I am more inclined to agree with the deletion of Nagisaki from when I looked at it, but I haven't formed an opinion either way. It's doing no harm being there really. Sakaratte (talk) 08:55, February 23, 2017 (UTC)
I would want to hear the opinion of an administrator before removing the delete template. PapiDimmi (talk) 08:57, February 23, 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, I've asked User:Paladin117 to make a final call on the matter. Sakaratte (talk) 09:19, February 23, 2017 (UTC)
That’s great; thanks. PapiDimmi (talk) 09:20, February 23, 2017 (UTC)
I'm the one who removed the tag and I'm an administrator. We cover on this wikia also the mentioned-only content. It's hard to draw a line on what to cover and what not to cover if you work with loose or subjective rules, so it's easiest to just cover everything that gets mentioned, as they may proove important to the Fallout universe at some point, but then just make it a "mentioned-only" thing, to indicate the relevance is most likely limited. Another point, but less relevant to this exact article, is that even though real life cities may have not much information about themselves in the game yet, other than what we know already, it should be kept in mind that the Fallout timeline has diversed from ours (presumably) after WWII, so often, the fact locations are just mentioned, can tell us more that that place still exists, which in itself adds information about the Fallout universe. Other things can also be interesting in other ways. For exampe Ronto is a mentioned-only location, and is often rumored to be Toronto, but even though it seems very likely, we can't confirm more about it yet and we just keep a relatively little saying page there. Maybe Ashur was just saying Ronto to shorten it, maybe Toronto changed names after the war, maybe it's a totally different city. In the case of Hiroshima for example, it tells us that the Fallout timeline didn't divert from our timeline yet at that point, but we don't know if Hiroshima was able to be built up again like we had in our real life timeline. And lastly, it is better in general to keep people on our Wiki, unless they really hunger for more real life information on a subject. Linking them away to other sites lowers our traffic. To my preference, pages like this should mention a minimum background and Fallout information (more or less what we have now), but also provide a link to Wikipedia to offer easy redirects if the person would be interested enough to read more about it anyway (what we are missing). - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 14:39, February 23, 2017 (UTC)

TP Archive PolicyEdit

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.http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_Wiki:User_conduct_guideline
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace'n Hugs (talkcontribs) 14:51, February 23, 2017 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
You can archive your talkpage when you have 40 posts of 32kb of talkpage content (you can check the number of kb in your talkpage history. See: Fallout_Wiki:User_conduct_guideline#Talk.2C_Forum_and_Blog_pages. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 14:53, February 23, 2017 (UTC)

HeyEdit

I noticed that you keep popping back to revert incorrect revisions every now and again, is there anyway you can be enticed back to do some more regular editing? I am aware that things got a little heated before you stopped, but overall the edits you made were pretty good. To me those contributions make you an asset. Sakaratte (talk) 12:52, March 16, 2017 (UTC)

I don’t appreciate being insulted for every revision I make, which might be the reason I don’t make twenty edits an hour. PapiDimmi (talk) 12:56, March 16, 2017 (UTC)

NUN NetworkEdit

I just explained it in the summary comment. This guideline article is professional enough, it doesn't have be all correct grammar English, sometimes you can make it a bit more frivolous and better/more inviting to read (and join) like Agent c can do well. I'd leave it like it is. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 20:55, March 26, 2017 (UTC)

It doesn’t have to be “all correct grammar English”…?
I think that it’s much less inviting to read a page with incorrectly-used hyphens when commas, which is a punctuation mark that’s much more common and easier to understand, would suffice. And some of the edits you reverted aren’t even visible by readers, so your response makes little sense. It seems like you reverted my revision just because. PapiDimmi (talk) 20:58, March 26, 2017 (UTC)

Talk pagesEdit

Why are you changing other people's talk page messages? You have been warned previously about this. It might not be conventionally headed, but it is clear as to what the subject is relation to. Sakaratte (talk) 09:35, March 27, 2017 (UTC)

I never edit others’ talk page messages.
If you’re talking about this, I simply changed boldface to a heading. Talk page posts are required to have headings, and without headings, the TOC doesn’t work properly or at all and the page is hard to navigate.
Long story short: it’s fine to add a signature (using the unsigned template) or titles to posts, and it’s fine to correct source code errors, but it’s not fine to literally edit the contents of a post, such as changing words or correcting grammar, and that I do not do. PapiDimmi (talk) 11:52, March 27, 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

{{Talkpage}}

As you can see from the talkpage template there is no specified format for the the title, nor is it even a requirement. In the context of the post in question, that is down to their personal preference. Personally, if you were to change the title of one of my posts (beyond your talk page) i would feel as insulted, just as I would if someone changed my spelling and grammar from Queen's English on a talk page. If a lack of titles makes a page difficult to read then there is absolutely no problem with adding a new title in above the original title, or modifying it, but to do so because you feel it is not in the right standard after being warned before about this type of change isn't really acceptable Sakaratte (talk) 13:05, March 27, 2017 (UTC)

I am not correcting grammar or spelling, and I am not changing any headings. I changed the formatting of a heading to be an actual heading rather than boldface. The user who created the post probably doesn’t know how to create headings. PapiDimmi (talk) 14:51, March 27, 2017 (UTC)
I just did the same thing myself (updating a header) on an article talkpage. Article talkpages are more of a "general community page" and not a personal page. It's ok to change the formatting like updating a header or removing 5 useless enters to make that talkpage better readable. Now calm down everyone. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 14:59, March 27, 2017 (UTC)

Luna's messageEdit

The user whose post that you're editing has made other posts on user talk and talk pages before. They have also used headers before. Your assumption then that they're ignorant of the existence of headers is thus incorrect. The user knows how to use headers and chose not to use one. You've also been warned countless times about editing posts and edit warring and you do realize there are consequences for those that ignore these warnings, correct? Paladin117>>iff bored; 20:50, March 30, 2017 (UTC)

All right, but why did he or she choose not to use a heading when he or she knows that they’re permitted? It’s most likely a mistake, which I fixed!
Now, you seem to have completely ignored my question: Why did you undo my revisions? Headings, as well as signatures, are permitted on talk pages; without them, talk pages would be a mess. You would have no idea who wrote what, and you’d have a hard time navigating the pages.
I did not change a title; I just changed a formatting error. I do not understand why you’re so obstinate. PapiDimmi (talk) 20:53, March 30, 2017 (UTC)
How do you know it's an error? Did you ask them? Paladin117>>iff bored; 20:57, March 30, 2017 (UTC)
It’s an error because the user always uses a heading except for this one time. It’s a formatting error.
Even if it is intentional, it should be fixed, because bold text is not a heading, as I’ve said countless times already. I did not correct grammar, change a sentence, or do anything like that. I simply changed the formatting to stay consistent with other talk pages and make the talk page easily readable and navigatable. PapiDimmi (talk) 20:59, March 30, 2017 (UTC)
And you went through Luna's entire editing history to verify this was a one time thing? And headers aren't required, especially for such a page with just one topic and it doesn't need to be done by someone repeatedly told to stop doing it and isn't even involved in the conversation. Paladin117>>iff bored; 21:15, March 30, 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You’re taking this way too seriously. No, I didn’t look at his or her contributions page, but you told me that he or she usually uses headings, which goes to show that this was a

And like I said, even if it weren’t a mistake, it should still be changed from boldface to a heading. No wiki should be inconsistent. Having headings on some talk pages and no headings on smaller talk pages is irrational. PapiDimmi (talk) 21:17, March 30, 2017 (UTC)

I'm taking this way too seriously? How many times have you edit warred over another person's talk page post again? Paladin117>>iff bored; 21:20, March 30, 2017 (UTC)
There’s a difference between fixing a minor error on a talk page and being obsessed with reverting everything for no apparent reason. PapiDimmi (talk) 21:21, March 30, 2017 (UTC)

Re:Sole Survivor ReferenceEdit

Thanks I had misread the perspective guidelines, and thought we were not to use references such as "one", hence my edit. Because of your edit I was able to see where I had misunderstood said guidelines and now will review them just to ensure there was nothing else I misread, and that I am up to date.

--RottingApple 16:23, March 31, 2017 (UTC)

AchievementsEdit

Warning red Hello PapiDimmi, please refrain from edit warring. If you feel your edits have been reverted without cause, leave a message on the article talk page, with the reverting editor, or one of Nukapedia's active administrators. Do not continue to edit war, as this will result in administrative action. You should take this opportunity to completely familiarize yourself with Nukapedia's user policies and content guidelines, if you have not yet done so.
Great Mara (talk) 17:29, March 31, 2017 (UTC)
How would I speak for myself when you're the one edit warring? You undid a revert of your edit. That's on you. Continue to do so and next I'll bring an admin into this. Great Mara (talk) 17:32, March 31, 2017 (UTC)
The reasoning of my revisions is that virgules should generally not be used in formal writing. “And” should be used, especially considering how it more closely represents the title of the article that it links to.
Due to the use of “and,” I had to change the order. PapiDimmi (talk) 17:39, March 31, 2017 (UTC)

EditwarringEdit

Hi there, when your edits gets reverted simply leave the page and drop the user who reverted your edit a message discuss things first instead of undoing the edit as it will only cause more problems than fixing it. ----Cassie I can see you。 17:43, March 31, 2017 (UTC)

Okay Papi, since it's obvious you're going to continue to ignore the dozens of warnings about edit warring you've already received, I'll just be blunt. If you continue to edit war, you will be banned. If someone reverts you, you do not revert them back, you start a discussion and find a compromise. It's that simple. Paladin117>>iff bored; 21:20, March 31, 2017 (UTC)
LovelyCassie, you really need to fix your signature; it ruins talk pages in source mode thanks to its messy formatting.
Paladin, it’s extremely infuriating to have my revisions constantly reverted every single day. Is it that hard to simply explain what’s wrong with my revisions? Why can’t people discuss with me on my talk page before reverting my revisions, so that I don’t have to discuss it in the edit summaries? PapiDimmi (talk) 22:39, March 31, 2017 (UTC)

Challenge/AchievementsEdit

I'm investigating it at the moment. If it's both an achievements/trophy and challenge it may not be necessary. I may get back on it. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 22:40, March 31, 2017 (UTC)

Varmint rifleEdit

I gave you a reason from why I changed add to + in my edit summary, it is what readers will be looking for especially gamers who are looking to see what increases and decreases that weapons and personal statistics. Changing that visibility makes it harder for readers, rather than improve the quality of the article.

I see Paladin has already told you that if you continued reverting your edits without discussing them a ban will be considered. I am reverting this back to what it was before and I will keep an open discussion with you. If you can convince me that add is better from readers standpoint I will allow you to change it again, not before. Sakaratte (talk) 22:58, March 31, 2017 (UTC)

I already explained why here. Sakaratte (talk) 23:04, March 31, 2017 (UTC)

SignatureEdit

That's how my signature works. You can just ignore it as I don't see anything wrong with it.

By the way I won't get notified if you reply to your own talkpage since I don't check your userpage frequently whenever I go online. ----Cassie I can see you 10:48, April 1, 2017 (UTC)
Done, I hope that settles the issue. ----Cassie I can see you 15:04, April 1, 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but that doesn’t work; it still causes issues in the source editor.
I recommend that you completely replace your current signature in your preferences with this:
<nowiki>----</nowiki>[[User:T234LovelyCassie|<font face=cursive color=darkmagenta>Cassie</font>]][[User talk:T234LovelyCassie|<font face='segoe script' color=green size=1> I can see you</font>]]。'''✿'''
It works and appears exactly like your current signature but is shorter and contains no issues in the code. PapiDimmi (talk) 15:10, April 1, 2017 (UTC)

Talk and user pagesEdit

I have two points I need to raise with you:

  1. We do not have a rule on how talk pages should look. If someone formats their message in a specific way then unless it physically makes the post illegible, do not change it. Also you have been told repeatedly not to edit war, yet you still continue, why?
  2. The image on your user page was inappropriate put up. Wikia is a publicly accessible website that caters to 13+ for registration. We are generally quite relaxed about we do and do not allow on pages, but I feel that crosses a line.

Sakaratte (talk) 15:57, April 1, 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect indentation makes talk pages hard to read, edit, and perceive. Read Wikipedia:Indentation and then come back (or not).
Why the hell heck are 90% of my revisions reverted? PapiDimmi (talk) 15:59, April 1, 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I have a very serious question for you, Papi. Do you really want to get blocked for editing another user's message simply because she freaking used an indent? I'll block you if that's what you want, but this is just idiotic. Paladin117>>iff bored; 16:33, April 1, 2017 (UTC)
I take intendation very seriously. I did not edit another users’ post; I fixed a post’s indentation to avoid confusion.
Intendation is used for new comments on posts or line breaks. I don’t see what’s wrong with replacing it with a line break (<br>) tag. Please explain, would you kindly? PapiDimmi (talk) 16:36, April 1, 2017 (UTC)
What you have offered is Wikipedia's guideline, although we do apply wikipedia's Manual of style, we don't follow any of their other conventions.
I cannot speak for others, but a significant portion of the revisions I have made for you edits are where you have applied a rule that we do not follow, or you have broken our policy on edit warring. The other reason I can think of is where we have a deviation to normal conventions that is more sensible than following formal writing rules (e.g. using + instead of add or - instead of :). If you are in doubt ask someone or check Fallout Wiki:Policies_and_guidelines and you will get an answer in most cases. If you haven't had a reply in a reasonable time (I operate at 24-48 hours as a rule of thumb for this) then revert it back and justify it in the summary. You will have a lot less of rough time if you check through the guidelines and talk to other users first why things are as they are instead of reverting them because they reverted you. I know your other grievance is people revert you on the first instance without discussing it with you, people are fully entitled to do so. Sequential revisions should not be done without discussion, although there are exceptions to this. Sakaratte (talk) 16:41, April 1, 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Wikipedia’s guidelines and its Manual of Style are general guidelines that most wikis follow, so that they do not have to create a million new policy pages. I automatically assume that every wiki I use follows at least the most general and common of these rules, and when Nukapedia’s (that’s this wiki, if you didn’t know already) policies tell me absolutely nothing about the questions that I have about editing, content, and style, what am I supposed to do?

I’m tired of making revisions and having them all reverted. I think that it’s totally ridiculous for a wiki to deliberately choose to use informal language, but if that’s what the admins choose, I can’t do anything. I think that I’ll start to refrain from editing pages to save myself from all this annoyance. PapiDimmi (talk) 16:57, April 1, 2017 (UTC)

Unusual Call BoxEdit

You have been told, several times on multiple occassions not to edit war. Do you really think this is a fucking joke or something? When someone reverts your edit, you don't come right up behind it an undo that revert. You've been told not to do this directly by an admin at least 4 months ago. Do you honestly think this wiki's rules don't apply to you? Great Mara (talk) 01:43, July 10, 2017 (UTC)

What about Sigmund Fraud, a moderator who edit warred? PapiDimmi (talk) 01:45, July 10, 2017 (UTC)
Are you honestly trying to play the 'but what about x' card? This isn't elementary school. Your poor behavior has been noted and warned against on several occassions. Get your act together. Great Mara (talk) 01:47, July 10, 2017 (UTC)
Moderators aren’t supposed to edit war, you know. Besides, I didn’t revert his revisions. I edited the page. PapiDimmi (talk) 01:50, July 10, 2017 (UTC)
Stop trying to play obtuse. You edited the page, Sakaratte undid it, you edit warred over that revision. YOU. Your behavior. That you've been told not to do. On multiple occassions. For months now. Great Mara (talk) 01:55, July 10, 2017 (UTC)
Points of clarity:
1. I did not edit war. I edited a completely separate part of the BTS the first time I edited the page. When you reverted my edit, I simply let it go because someone else could easily redo my own edit if it was a truthful edit and it wouldn't be an edit war. My second edit was reinforcing your edits about the TARDIS's expanded name and the whole "bigger on the inside" fact. Since it was my first foray into that deal, it wasn't an edit war.
2. Even though you didn't click the big ol' undo button in the revision history, you still undid his edit in the page itself. They are one and the same.
3. As a moderator, I expect Mara to not have to resort to callous swearing to get his point across. Continue warning him respectfully or pester an administrator to ban him if you think a ban is righteous.
Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 02:01, July 10, 2017 (UTC)
I didn’t revert you either. I made separate edits as well, but according to Great Mara, that’s edit warring.
And yes, he does tend to swear and insult me a lot. I’ve gotten used to that by now. PapiDimmi (talk) 02:03, July 10, 2017 (UTC)

Edit Warring Edit

Howdy there, PapiDimmi, you seem to have been involved in an edit war on the Unusual Call Box Page. This ain't your first time being warned about this. Consider this a final warning in regards to edit warring. If I see you edit warring again, it'll be a ban. There's proper procedures to follow on this wiki. 01:49, July 10, 2017 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia’s talk page guidelines, users are free to remove content from their own talk page as they wish.
Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages.
I’m not sure why you’re opposed to this or why I deserve to be blocked for simply acknowledging and removing a section from my own talk page. Does this wiki have guidelines that contradict Wikipedia’s talk page guidelines?
The reason that you posted this warning on my talk page is that I could see the warning, and I have seen it, which is why I removed it, because I wanted to clean up my talk page. What’s wrong with that? PapiDimmi (talk) 01:58, July 10, 2017 (UTC)
You've been told multiple times now that this is not Wikipedia and their guidelines have nothing to do with this wiki. We have our own policies and guidelines (which you've claimed to have read), which state that you do not remove content from your talk page. Paladin117>>iff bored; 02:02, July 10, 2017 (UTC)

Ignorance of OUR rules is no excuse for not following them. You are not on wikipedia. You are on the fallout wiki. We do some things a bit differently here. Among one of those things is that you can't remove content from talk pages (outside of very specific circumstances) as I mentioned in my block message, read The Fallout Wiki's Rules. Richie9999 (talk) 02:03, July 10, 2017 (UTC)


BlockEdit

Apparently you failed to understand both my warning and the policies of this wiki. Here on the wiki, among other polices, we have one regarding talk page messages which is that, unless it's vandalism or it's being archived, the contents of a user's talk page does not get deleted, yet the message above has been posted three times now. One of the times you removed it while leaving a note saying "Yes, I have gotten your warning." Now, despite your history of edit warring, I was gonna leave it with just that above warning but you pushed it. You've been banned for 3 days. Read the policies while you're gone so that this doesn't happen again. Richie9999 (talk) 02:00, July 10, 2017 (UTC)

Can you give me the link to said policy?
What’s the reason for it anyway? The only reason you’d post a warning on my page is so that I can see it. I have seen it, and I’ve acknowledged it, so what’s the point of forcing me to keep an unnecessary warning on my talk page? PapiDimmi (talk) 02:03, July 10, 2017 (UTC)
Fallout Wiki:User conduct guideline#Talk, Forum and Blog pages
Your talk page serves as a record for admins so that they can see any past warnings or difficulties and make accurate judgements based on more than just a basic block record. ::Richie9999 (talk) 02:09, July 10, 2017 (UTC)
Every page has a history. PapiDimmi (talk) 02:11, July 10, 2017 (UTC)
History does not display what was removed or added, unless someone cares to take the time to compare edits to hunt down warnings. Here you are held accountable for you actions. All users are. Whatever misdeeds a user may have had are there as a matter of record to be seen easily when it is necessary to take any action, or to inform as to possible past issues a user may have had. Richie9999 (talk) 02:14, July 10, 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it does. PapiDimmi (talk) 02:17, July 10, 2017 (UTC)

(Ok. I'm gonna step in here and see if I can make a few things as clear as possible. First, and please make sure you fully understand this: This is NOT Wikipedia. Fandom, Wikia, Nukapedia, however you slice it, has nothing to do with either Wikipedia or their policies. As this has been pointed out to you many times, I believe you are aware of this and are being specious in your argument by bringing their policies up here. Please do not do so again. As has also been pointed out to you many times, we have our own policies. Whether or not you have read them, or understand them, is irrelevant. You are required to abide by them. The rationale behind those policies is also irrelevant in their application. Whether you agree with them is also irrelevant. All you need to know from here on out is that we expect you to abide by those policies, as written, or you'll continue to force us to apply our user conduct policies. If you dislike our policies, you have a few choices: refuse to contribute here because of them; attempt to get them changed; or continue to ignore them, which will end with additional blocks. Your next block will be for a week, then a month, then a permanent block. Using an alternate account to access the wiki while blocked is also proscribed and we have the tools to check for this. Please take the time while you're blocked to fully understand the policies here and everything I've written to you. If you come back, I'll personally be watching to make certain you abide by all our policies. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 02:38, July 10, 2017 (UTC)

Yes ManEdit

As you can see here on line 59 the script is written as "This is going to be great! I'm going to help you accomplish so much, whether I want to or not!". We go by the dialogue scripts, rather than the vocal for quotations. There is nothing to say we can't address discrepancies in the notes section, if it is a notable discrepency (e.g. Prince Street in vocals, Charter in dialogue). I don't entirely agree with this rule per say, but I understand the basis as essentially "you wouldn't modify a historic document because the spelling wasn't right before putting it in a museum". Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 18:13, July 18, 2017 (UTC)

Well, that’s pretty irrational, but thank you for clarifying. PapiDimmi (talk) 18:15, July 18, 2017 (UTC)

Edit warringEdit

You have been warned and again about reverting without discussion, it doesn't matter how long it ago it was, edit warring is edit warring. I'm not sure you have learnt your lesson from the last block, but let me make it clear: If you edit war just once more, I will block you for a week.

We have rules in place here, abide by them. If you don't like them then I'm sure there are other places where the rules are more fitting for you. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 15:23, August 26, 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring? All I did was revert a revision once. That’s not edit warring. PapiDimmi (talk) 15:25, August 26, 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to discuss semantics, you know if something is reverted you need to discuss it with the other user, not revert it back again. That is all I am going to say on the matter. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 15:27, August 26, 2017 (UTC)
Okay. I apologize. PapiDimmi (talk) 15:30, August 26, 2017 (UTC)

Wild Wasteland Edit

I reverted it because I did not see a single improvement made. For one, we don't randomly add spaces to headings. We also do not randomly replace periods with... whatever you were replacing them with. The Clear templates are there to make sure the sections space out properly so should definitely not be removed. And none of the wild wasteland encounters are analogies so I have no idea why you would edit that. Paladin117>>iff bored; 00:31, August 27, 2017 (UTC)

The page looks fine without any clear templates. Also, what about the other changes that I made to the page? Also, the spaces weren’t “random.” I added spaces to every heading, and I replaced sequences of three periods with the ellipsis symbol, . PapiDimmi (talk) 00:34, August 27, 2017 (UTC)
Adding any spaces to headings, whether to some or all, is random. We do not do that on articles, especially not on purpose. We've also never used ellipses and I don't see any reason to have a single article with them. And I didn't see much reason for the additions to the Doctor Who references. Paladin117>>iff bored; 00:41, August 27, 2017 (UTC)
“And I didn't see much reason for the additions to the Doctor Who references.” I fixed some links and errors, and I rephrased some sentences and paragraphs. I’d appreciate if you could explain specifically what I changed that I shouldn’t’ve.
Also, can you please explain the purpose of the clear templates on the page? As far as I can tell, the page doesn’t look any different without them. PapiDimmi (talk) 00:46, August 27, 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── When images are placed in an article, the wiki attempts to format the paragraphs to work around the image. While this usually looks fine when there's only one or two images, in articles with several images that are tied to specific sections (like this one), it can truly mess up the spacing, especially since we've got readers with all kinds of screen sizes. The Clear template forces the wiki to begin the next section after the previous section is done, including its image, making it far neater.

As for the rest of your edit:

  • You removed the Wild Wasteland template from the top when that's the template's main purpose.
  • You moved "special encounters" from the end of the sentence to the middle, which made little difference.
  • You removed the quotes of "alien-esque" when the quotes seemed fitting.
  • You changed a sentence to "along with the road out of town", which makes no sense.
  • You randomly added a paragraph to one section about a reference in a totally different game, which has nothing to do with Wild Wasteland.
  • And more...

And finally, I (and Sakaratte) reverted your entire edit. Not part of your edit, all of it. So, you trying to re-add content anyway is still edit-warring. Paladin117>>iff bored; 01:04, August 27, 2017 (UTC)

1. I removed the FNVWW template because I thought it made little sense for the template to be on the Wild Wasteland page, since the template links to Wild Wasteland.
2. Yes, I improved the sentence’s structure to make it easier to comprehend.
3. Can you please explain how the quotation marks around “alien-esque” are fitting?
4. Oh, yes, I sure did. My bad.
5. Yeah, you’re right: I guess that doesn’t quite fit. Again, I didn’t “randomly” add it, though. I added it because I felt like it was right at the time that I initially edited the page.
PapiDimmi (talk) 01:17, August 27, 2017 (UTC)
I’ve edited the page again, making a few improvements, correcting some inaccurate information, and adding more information. I didn’t edit or add anything that you told me that I shouldn’t have.
It isn’t edit warring, by the way, because I took what you said into account and didn’t edit anything you told me not to, and I also didn’t undo any revisions but rather manually edited the page again. PapiDimmi (talk) 01:25, August 27, 2017 (UTC)
As I said yesterday Papi, if I caught you edit warring (again I am not going to discuss semantics) I would block you. Additionally, when you originally reverted the page yesterday, you removed another users good edit on a project they have been working on to get our articles to standard (I let this slide at the time). Take a week off, reflect on why we are telling you these things, instead of arguing semantics and changing articles after you have been told not to. I checked each of your edits post warning and you had been given an explanation for why not to do it. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 11:22, August 27, 2017 (UTC)
I didn’t revert anyone else’s edits, and I didn’t edit war. I edited the page manually rather than undoing a revision, and I took what Paladin117 said into account and didn’t remove the clear templates, etc. PapiDimmi (talk) 11:24, August 27, 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You didn't clear edit templates? Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 11:28, August 27, 2017 (UTC)

Not in my latest revision on that page, no. PapiDimmi (talk) 11:31, August 27, 2017 (UTC)

Message removalEdit

I noticed you removed the most recent message on your talkpage. Although it doesn't meet the standard requirements for blanking I'll apply admin discretion and allow it. I'm going to assume good faith in not checking with an admin as you're blocked for not checking, but in future you need to check first.

I get notifications if you leave a message here and it will show on the patrol list, so it won't be long until someone spots a message on here.

This message also serves as notice to other admins who may want to discuss the stay of blanking with me. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 04:15, August 30, 2017 (UTC)

Why the flying piece of nuclear fuck shouldn’t I be allowed to remove a pointless question from my own talk page? PapiDimmi (talk) 05:48, August 30, 2017 (UTC)
Again, to quote user conduct:
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).
Technically I shouldn't look the other way, but I'm allowing it because, as you say it is a pointless question. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 06:49, August 30, 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know. I read it too. I’m just asking what the purpose of this rule is, exactly. Everything is available in the revision history of a talk page, so why not allow people to remove posts on their own talk page at will, like on Wikipedia? PapiDimmi (talk) 10:44, August 30, 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It was a decision made long before either of got here. Essentially it's there for admins etc to have easy access to warnings and other information if they get asked to take a look at matter. It's like when your first block was considered, everything was there to hand to make a decision. For petty messages like this it makes them an annoyance until your talk page gets big enough to archive, but they're easy enough to ignore.

There are pros and cons allowing blanking Vs archiving over a set period of time. At present this feels like the best pick of a bad bunch. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 11:57, August 30, 2017 (UTC)

Now, someone else blocked me for removing the pointless question from my talk page, even though you, Sakaratte, told me it was all right.
If I put the question back, can I please be unblocked? PapiDimmi (talk) 17:55, August 30, 2017 (UTC)
I blocked you. What I would like you to do is go up and read the last message I left you. Then think about what I said then. It holds true now. All of it. Now, to answer your question: No.  The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 21:26, August 30, 2017 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Sakaratte, an admin, told me that I was allowed to remove the post. PapiDimmi (talk) 17:02, September 15, 2017 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.