Talk: JCB2077

	Archives: #1

Dialogue question[]

If you can't help at the moment that's fine we all get busy.

In theory I can do that. In practice I lack the ability process the information to make the pages. Even then we don't have a clearly defined format for the dialogue table. I've drawn one up....I think, but I don't believe it was agreed upon.

As for the not adding the "verify" template, If there is no source file I'm adding it.

If the case is that we are still missing dialogue files due to the character having multiple files, should I add an "under construction tag or something?

Should I at least start to make a list of the characters that need dialogue files? That way, once we codify the format for the dialogue files we can just go through a nice list?

--Ant2242 (talk) 22:30, October 4, 2020 (UTC)

What's a "UC" tag? Yeah, its a daunting task but we have to at least start someplace. Speaking of I'm updating an old project, just to get the audio holos accounted for, for future verification.--Ant2242 (talk) 22:40, October 4, 2020 (UTC)

BS launcher[]

The comparison you made about the brotherhood launcher is completely against the rules. While I noticed the whole Sig Sauer debate and personally have mixed feelings about it, this comparison is definitely wrong. As the M203 is not in the game and you are therefore comparing the BL to a real world weapon, which you cannot do without dev confirmation.--Branebriar1930 (talk) 23:38, October 4, 2020 (UTC)

'Bares resemblance', 'similarity to', 'shares characteristics', the term you use does not matter if you are trying to allude to a similarity between a real world weapon and an in-game one. In fact saying it 'bares resemblance' instead of 'it is' may even be worse because it could be viewed as speculation. Adding the tags about it possibly being unconfirmed does not help, as the 'no weapons comparison' rule is more strict and less open to interpretation than simple behind the scenes referencing, as only two criteria allow for weapon comps - dev confirmation and actually sharing the name of the RW weapon.--Branebriar1930 (talk) 01:29, October 5, 2020 (UTC)

I am well aware that people are going to try and speculate regardless but its just too bad. I would love to call the handmade rifle an AK or the radium rifle a Volkssturmgewehr (Just go look at how many people have done so with the radium rifle). I'm sure there are people who have been salty about the Chinese rifle from FO3 for 12 years now. Unfortunately we simply cannot make those weapon assertions however. I assume because certain weapons would be harder to classify and it would lead to a bunch of pages with a list of potential (speculative) options. It would probably result in constant bickering (more so than there already is). Easier to just leave it up to the devs.--Branebriar1930 (talk) 01:49, October 5, 2020 (UTC)

Well alright then, good to go.--Branebriar1930 (talk) 01:50, October 5, 2020 (UTC)

Steel Dawn content[]

I was wondering, where did you find the new Steel Dawn content? I'm working on some note pages, but I can't find several of them in Xedit. Jspoel 11:45, October 6, 2020 (UTC)

Every note from Steel Dawn I didn't add a location for, about 75% or so on the Steel Dawn page. I just checked again for a Steel Dawn update, nothing. Strange. Jspoel 13:28, October 6, 2020 (UTC)

About your revert to my edit on the Enclave[]

Hello, I just noticed that you reverted my changes to the Enclave page. I was just wondering what parts of my edit warranted being reverted, as I cannot imagine any parts that were to fall short of any pre-existing regulation regarding editing on the wiki. I made sure to source my article correctly, add appropriate pictures, quotes, maintain good spelling and grammar, and add relevant information to the page itself. If you could please enlighten me as to your reasoning I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. 4546B (talk) 17:08, October 8, 2020 (UTC)

• Hi again. After reading your comment I can understand how it may have looked a bit confusing at first and possibly suspicious since I haven't edited on this wiki in two years, but I assure you my intentions are amicable. I suppose I am simply unsure as to where my article editorializes other than in the quotes I included that I thought added more character to the page itself. I do not believe I ever say "The Enclave is great and wiped out all the mutant scum" or any such obvious opinionated writing, and reading it again I can't really see where my information falls into the realm of editorializing other than, as I stated earlier, the quotes. Could you please let me know where you believe I am editorializing in my work? Also, would a change of this caliber be better put to some sort of vote? 4546B (talk) 17:24, October 8, 2020 (UTC)

• • Okay, that's fair enough. I created a sandbox page of my edit so feel free to add on and modify bits and pieces on it. Let me know if you need anything else! 4546B (talk) 17:45, October 8, 2020 (UTC)

• • • Hello once more. Regarding your list, funny enough over half of the list itself wasn't actually written by myself but was there beforehand. I simply moved it around in places to better fit the "flow" of the article and largely left them alone. The "Following the purges" section was written by someone else, I only added in the "anointed president" part as an afterthought and it could probably fit in better somewhere else. The "single-minded pursuit of vengeance" paragraph also was not written by myself. The "Although MODUS" paragraph was not written by myself. So 3/5 of the list's entries weren't actually of my writing! I decided to include "senatorial muckraker" and "anti-corruption activist" in the description of Sam Blackwell since I figured it was a fairly accurate overview of the character to an uninformed reader and largely opinion-free, although it could be reworded to something like "Known anti-corruption activist and United States Senator Sam Blackwell... " instead. I could also rewrite the whole "Blackwell vanished; only to shortly reappear and deliver a damning critique of the US government, decrying the existence of a shadow government and their sick plans on American citizens in a controversial interview published in the Charleston Herald." By simply removing the word "damning" and adding in quotation marks to the word "sick" to imply that it was his words and not the author's. Either way, thank you for your understanding and your willingness to engage in this fruitful discussion. 4546B (talk) 17:57, October 8, 2020 (UTC)

• Hi again. I edited and hopefully removed the editorialized sections you mentioned, and added more context to the quotes. Please let me know what you think and if it should be posted. I agree that your suggestions made it much better. Thanks! 4546B (talk) 19:28, October 8, 2020 (UTC)

Community Disruptions[]

This isn't something I enjoy doing, as I've been watching you with great interest lately, and I have high hopes for you under Kate's tutelage. But a few weeks back, we were sent a great deal of evidence, evidence that we verified through timestamps here on the wiki, that you've been circumventing your ban on the dataminer server, whether through an alt or a proxy, in order to keep tabs on discussions that they're having.

In and of itself, this is not our problem, and it's something we expect for them to handle in-house. What is our problem, is that it's clear that you've been keeping tabs on these discussions for your premeditated moves to edit the articles first (within the hour of them having a discussion on each article), and this has resulted in editor conflicts and edit wars, which is, frankly, unacceptable.

I don't know the full extent of your problems with the datamining community, and that doesn't particular interest me either. What I do care about, is one of our users systematically going out of their way to ostracize an entire community that we've worked hard at creating an affiliation through, and the general administrative consensus is that your behaviour is in bad faith when we have numerous people coming to us, saying that you're harassing them, and that they have no interest in editing this wiki so long as your behaviour towards them continues.

For creating a widespread user conflict with an entire affiliate community through premeditated article stalking, and edit-warring such as on the Reuben Gill article which forced not one, but two administrators to have to temporarily protect the article from further editing, you have been banned for a period of 1-week. ^寧靜 03:24, October 12, 2020 (UTC)

Probation[]

Your block is about to expire, and it'll be good to have you back on the wiki again.

I'm hoping that this will be the last time I have to make a block like this, and I think that's going to require focusing your energy on more productive endeavors, rather than constantly worrying about what other editors are doing.

The administration has discussed this matter, and we've agreed to put you under a probationary period once your block is up. During this period, you are not to directly interact with the dataminers and their edits. If you find issue with any of their actions, you are to contact an administrator directly who will look into it for you. Consider your probation indefinite as of now; at our discretion we will lift it once we feel as if progress has been made and we no longer have to worry about you making an entire community feel alienated against editing here.

I know that this is harsh, and believe me when I say that we're not thrilled either at the thought of having to deal with a user under probation. But we do value you and your contributions here, and we'd rather you stay and be a part of our community. But if you continue down the path you've been on, then frankly that's not going to happen, so here we are.

There is a vast wiki in front of you here, and you certainly don't need to be shadowing the edits of a select few editors. The rest of us from this point on will deal with their edits as necessary. And remember that you have the entire administration at your disposal if you need to contact us, and I would highly recommend using more than just a single administrator as your point of contact. We are all here to help, and I can promise you that we'll look into anything you send to us as fairly as possible.

Happy editing. ^寧靜 18:00, October 18, 2020 (UTC)

Senior initiate on the east coast[]

You know that saying 'It is unknown' is not acceptable and you know that each chapter has some different ranks. We only put down the ranks we know exist in each chapter. Fallout 3 did not have SI, Fallout 4 does not have SI. Until we get a game that has SI on the east coast, they don't exist there.--Branebriar1930 (talk) 15:16, October 27, 2020 (UTC)

Alright then, but also why did you change the edit it made to the Dusk page? I know what the guide says but that contracts the game completely? (she sits inside all day) --Branebriar1930 (talk) 15:31, October 27, 2020 (UTC)

Dawn[]

But it CAN been seen, just by going into the Citadel and seeing that she sits in her chair inside all day. You know that the guide is only a supplementary source of info, and is not considered canon if it contradicts the game.--Branebriar1930 (talk) 15:46, October 27, 2020 (UTC)

Permanent ban[]

After investigating the string of new accounts all of whom decided to vote in favor of Resident, as part of Forum:Vote: Fallout 76 player character, we have determined through check-user that at least one of those was an undisclosed alternate account of yours: A sockpuppet. While alternate accounts are not expressly banned, using them to alter a vote is a gross violation of our policies and standards of conduct expected from users.

In light of your previous behavior and conflicts with other users, you have left us no other choice. You have been given enough second, third, and fourth chances. As of today, your account has been indefinitely blocked. You may request a review of the block in 12 months time. Tägäżïël 09:52, October 28, 2020 (UTC)

I was sad to see you get blocked for at least a year, the reasons for it have gone mostly past me. You've done some good editing and that counts for something, so if you keep your head down (f.e. no evading blocks), you can make use of the Saint Paint rule in less than a year and I'll support your request asking the community to let you return. Jspoelstra (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Although I acknowledge and have received the ban, I still wish to request an appeal, or further investigation/re-investigation into the matter at hand, due to the restrictions placed upon me, I could not properly defend myself, nor could the parties accused of being "undisclosed alternate account(s)." As such, I am available here or on Discord, should the matter be able to be furthered. While I am grateful that the Saint Pain rule exists, and provides what can only be called "restorative justice" to those who seek it, I do not believe my further bans were justified, and were simply handed down on the matters of bad faith rather than conclusive, rational, or decisive evidence. While the wiki is not a court of law, it is a record-keeping sanctuary of facts and archives. As such, although there is a fair amount of an international audience, administration of the wiki included, the United States of America-based company known as FANDOM is able to uphold the internationally-recognized presumption of innocence, typically recognized as "innocent until proven guilty", a presumption that was not applied in these proceedings, nor was the assigned party in charge of handling any and all manners of crime and/or punishment were I to commit such a thing, the user known as Kate Darrow, able to accomplish or otherwise handle the matter in a manner best befitting wiki proceedings or actual investigative merits. In this specific manner, I only request that either the supposed alternate accounts are to be investigated once more, or that I be contacted or otherwise discuss the matter with a wiki authority in a proper, policy-abiding manner, in whatever conditions or matters of investigation the authority wishes. Should either of these be met to a satisfactory degree by myself or the assigned party, Kate Darrow, and I be found to be guilty of the accused crime, if not previous crimes, I will accept a permanent ban from the wiki, no Saint Pain rule, no appeals, simply a permanent ban from Nukapedia and all other affiliated FANDOM wikis. These are my requests, I only wish for them to be met. JCB2077 (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Pornography.[]

In the past few weeks, the user known as Scribe-Howard, Waster93 on Discord, has repeatedly spammed very explicit pornographic images to me on Discord when I converse with him, despite my wishes for him not to do so. At other times, he does it without conversing at all. I wish for something to be done about this matter. JCB2077 (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Discord has a feature for this, called "block", use it.RevertingGhost (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Although the user in question has been blocked, it has not resolved the actual issue of pornography being repeatedly sent to another user without permission or request. A recent vandalising of my talk page, in which the user changed the word "pornography" to "lore" only accentuates the need of resolution in this matter. For those doubtful or disbelieving of this matter, I have the offending images screencaptured, and can send them for review at any time, should it be requested. Although they are pornography, I do not believe in the censorship or rewriting of events, real or fictional, as they have happened or occurred. JCB2077 (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am disappointed to hear that you did not appreciate the tasteful, and certifiably canon, artwork I had shared with you. I thought we had something truly S.P.E.C.I.A.L. and will be forever heartbroken that the deep bond I felt for you was not mutual. I pray for you every day and night.
I will love you always, [[User:Scribe-Howard] (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2077 (UTC)

Me, after you harassed me and countless others over discord for edits we made on the wiki

Appeal[]

There's a lot to cover here, so I'm going to try my best to break this down as much as I can:

- Pornography: In no sense do we approve of our users harassing each other through Discord DMs, and this is something we've talked to Scribe about. DMs are a private space, though, separate from our limited jurisdiction, and we typically do not police those except in the most extreme of circumstances. Your best option in this case is to block offending users from being able to contact you, or even report them to Discord if you feel strongly enough.

- Vandalism: I saw the incident between you and Scribe on your talk-page and they'll be getting a warning over it in just a moment. That sort of behaviour isn't acceptable, and we'll be cracking down on it as we see it.

- Appeal: The first thing of note here is that no singular admin has been assigned to your case, and you do not have the authority to be making the requests that you're making. You might not like that, but that's something you're going to have to come to terms with. If you feel as if your talk-page here is too restrictive to properly make an appeal, you are also free to create a thread on Community Central], which is considered a neutral space among the Wikia/FANDOM platform.

- You are free to either show your evidence here or there, and we'll take it all into account, but I should warn you in advance that we've already taken into consideration one of the claims we've been hearing, in that the user account attached to your I.P. address is a family member, and if that's the story you're wanting to stick with, then that's not particularly going to help your case. As in, you either created a sock-puppet account in order to disrupt an ongoing vote, or you were trying to disrupt an ongoing vote by brigading it with family members. ^寧靜 20:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Just to be crystal clear, manipulating other users and using them as proxies to badmouth admins or staffers isn't going to help it either. Fandom does not micromanage communities and doesn't intervene unless absolutely essential. In this case, the community has collectively decided it does not want you here after multiple instances of harassing users to the point of them leaving (Discord or otherwise), shadowing dataminers and their edits to the wiki, and when called out, trying to lawyer yourself out of taking responsibility.

Take responsibility for the actions that brought you to this point and reflect on why this and other communities have shown you the door. Tägäżïël 17:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

SaintPain appeal request[]

Hello,

As it has been over one year since my ban was issued, I would like to request to have my case reviewed under the “SaintPain” rule. In the time since my ban, many changes have occured, both during the previous administration, and the current administration. Having improved in my behaviors and general editing, I wish to ask for administrative review of my ban, and to explain myself in the matters that occured during and after my ban.

Thank you, JCB2077 (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Request received, I wait until you're ready to place it. Jspoel 15:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)