UESPWiki talk:Administrator Noticeboard
April Fools Day Joke, 2007
Ha Ha Ha HAAA! This is a phenomenal April Fools joke, by far. I spent the better part of 20 minutes quadruple checking that this was the same ShakenMike as a few pages up on here. Isn't the user blocked by choice as well, me thinks someone else is making his posts, they are forgetting to put the two dashes before the fake signature, which the four tildes does automatically. But, very nicely orchestrated, It's only been the 1st for one hour and I've been gotten twice already, I should stay in the shower all day maybe. Delete this post if it ruins the joke.(dash-dash)--AlbinoMudcrab 01:03, 1 April 2007 (EDT) [moved here from main discussion page] --Aristeo | Talk 22:09, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
- Actually, the missing dashes are correct in this case - you'll notice the real ShakenMike did that all the time. I'm not sure how I feel about picking on the mentally handicapped (and I'm not being insulting - he actually said that himself in one of his edit summaries. Check his [Page]), but I think it's pretty harmless in this case. I just hope he's found another site more suitable to his needs... --TheRealLurlock Talk 22:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Archived by "...."
Is it really necessary to say who archived a page? This almost falls under the rule of "no attribution". All it's really doing is allowing a user to say "I did this! Aren't I brilliant?". I think they should be removed. - Game LordTalk|Contribs 10:06, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
- Unless there's some compelling reason to attribute archives, I would agree with that idea. --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 22:40, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
- I think that someone (Aristeo??) started that, and then others followed suit. There is a justification in that overly-quick archiving might be used to hide topics -- so saying who did the archiving is a more transparent. But, as stated, history page is sufficient, and subsequently added archiving policy makes hiding less likely. --Wrye 15:57, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
Time to Vote
I've just deleted this section without archiving it.
I agree with Ratwar that this was only ever intended to troll. I don't see any reason to keep this item on the site.
I'd normally request opinions at this point, but I'm afraid I don't want to hear them unless they're from mentors, patrollers or admins. This is a blatant troll and I think it should be treated as such. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 16:15, 1 March 2009 (EST)
- Yes it was. Only reason I participated in that charade was to remind the trolls that most people do not share their vendetta. --Gez 16:34, 1 March 2009 (EST)
- I agree that the post was pointless, probably posted a troll (probably the same one who has made a few similar posts in the past), and did not deserve any response.
- For the record, I'd be glad to hear feedback or suggestions from editors who have made productive contributions to the site. Posts made by real editors would not be deleted from the Admin Noticeboard (or the Community Portal), because it's clear that such editors actually have an interest in improving the site. However, it is far too easy for an individual to maliciously post nonsense like this, either as anonymous IP or with a newly-created account. We all have much better things to do with our time (including tasks that actually improve the site) than to be forced to waste our time dealing with people who want to damage the site and/or its community. --NepheleTalk 17:06, 1 March 2009 (EST)
- Agreed on all counts...I don't think the original post had any merit whatsoever. Had it been a name we know, it would have deserved more attention, but of course it was only a pseudo-anonymous account because by and large, I think people are happy with the Administration here! I've had disagreements with Administrators before, and have voiced them openly. If people were seriously that concerned about our Administrators, they'd either have voiced their problems openly as well, or brought them to those of us who will. I see this as nothing more than a childish attempt to create divisiveness for the sake of creating divisiveness. --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 17:46, 1 March 2009 (EST)
- Well, the only reason I left it up was the whole 'transparency' thing. I didn't want it to look as if I was attempting to cover up any thing, even if I (and probably anyone else that took time to understand the situation) know it isn't a legitimate compliant. Of course, that's trumped since the user returned earlier today, once again using an open proxy to make it look as if he had more support. I'd like to echo Nephele's comments about feedback. If you have an established account or an established IP, I am willing to listen to suggestions and comments. Also, if anyone has this poor kid's e-mail, I'd suggest sending him some porn. He obviously needs a diversion.--Ratwar 18:15, 1 March 2009 (EST)
- We are, and I did. One good thing about this episode is that two more anonymous proxies are now infinitely blocked.
- Incidentally, as others have said, I'd welcome comments and feedback from people who have worked on the site but when it comes from a newly-created account editing through an open proxy and seems designed only to cause trouble, I'm not interested. If somebody has something to say about me or anyone else, they should at least have the courage to show their face while doing it. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 00:31, 2 March 2009 (EST)
- As long as UESP is credited (see Copyright and Ownership), you can use any content you want. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I have a encountered a bit of a problem. I have not received my email verification Email, I have checked both my normal folder and spam folder and it is not in either of those. I was wondering if it was possible for you to manually verify the email address. I can be contacted at Masterzack@att.net.
Request to change Username
Hello. I would like to change my username -- how do I make that request? Maeve4444 23:30, 31 August 2012
- Post something similar to this discussion on the article, rather than this talk page. ABCface◥ 23:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, and I'm sure it's a very good one...something along the lines of "because" or "nobody noticed until now". ;) – Robin Hood (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Cold you automatically redirect computer users to the desktop version?
When I get here from google it is often the mobile website, obviously I can click on "Desktop" or go to en.uesp.net instead of www.uesp.net, but it's annoying, so it would be nice if you were automatically redirected if you are on a computer.
- This is probably related, or the same, bug where a page will randomly display the mobile site version instead of the desktop. We'll be trying to track down the cause and do a fix in the near future as time permits. -- Daveh (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)