User talk:Bauglir100


Hello! Welcome to UESPWiki. It's always good to have new members. If you would like to help improve any of our pages, you may want to take a look at the following links:

If you, on the other hand, would like to spice up your userpage, take a look at this link:

  • Userboxes: near complete list of userboxes, including a guide to make your own

When you're editing, it's always a good idea to leave edit summaries to explain the changes you have made to a particular page, and remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes ~~~~. Also, the "show preview" button is a great way to view the changes you've made so far without actually saving the page (our patrollers really appreciate it!).

Feel free to practice editing in the sandbox or discuss the games in the forums. If you need any help, don't hesitate to contact one of our mentors.

And another thing: Please don't alter other people's talk page messages, especially when they are really really old. It's against the rules.

Have fun! --SkoomaManiac 04:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


Just FYI, you can insert auto-numbering by putting a # at the beginning of a line. That'll also ensure that the lines don't get all wrapped together into a single paragraph. Robin Hoodtalk 00:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


Not sure what you were trying to do here, but whatever it is, it should be done in a Sandbox. That page exists as a redirect. —SkoomaManiac TalkContribs 03:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps not. AKB seems to think differently. Ignore me for the time being. —SkoomaManiac TalkContribs 03:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


Hi there, Bauglir.

I just want to let you know that trying to add to a conversation that is several years old is called necroposting and it is against site policy. It's pointless to try to start up an old conversation when none of the original contributors are likely to see it, unless it happens to answer a question i.e. bug fix, bug confirmation. In the case of Lore talk:Jyggalag, the post is speculative and better suited for our forums.

Speaking of speculative, the additions you've attempted to add to Lore:Dremora have been reverted each time for being speculation. Speculation is not permitted on the site: If it is not explicitly stated in-game or from Bethesda, it cannot be considered canon.

In both of these cases, you continue to re-add them, even though they've been reverted multiple times. This is considered edit warring. Continuing to re-add things that have been reverted by patrollers and admins will result in a warning, and if need be, a block.

I'm sure you mean well and I'd hate to see this happen. Please take this to heart. Thanks! •WoahBro►talk 20:39, 13 December 2014 (GMT)

Moved from Lore talk:DremoraEdit

Discussion moved from Lore talk:Dremora

Yeah, uh...Newsflash: all you people ever do is agree with Legoless. I often wonder why I even bother using talk pages or even edit at all if nobody ever takes my side or even replies when I really need help with something. I have a whole bunch of posts on other talk pages that are borderline cries for help, yet they just get ignored or deleted. Also, how come I can't fix a link or a spelling mistake on someone else's post, yet people can just delete anything I post because it's too "forum-like" or whatever? I think you people just like to see me suffer. Bauglir100 (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2015 (GMT)

I've moved your reply here since it has nothing to do with Dremora but rather your incontent with the wiki / the community. First off, in a world that's been created in someone else's mind and presented to us in several games that all distort our view due to different game mechanic constraits, it's not always easy to decide what's true fact and what's just a compromise made by the developers. So for everything seen in-game, we have to ask this question and decide what to mention here. A better source are notes, books and dialogue. Writers have less constrictions than programmers since writing about something is easyer than programming it, so books are our preferred type of source. Due to these facts, the interpretation of the material given to us sometimes leads to controversity. We are not always on the same opinion about things, and then we use talk pages to discuss these, but we generally prefer to only have things stated that we know to be true in lore while not overcluttering the articles wiht things that are likely to be game-technical constraits. We, as the UESP Community, are not always of the same opinion (look here), but I'll defend the side I think is right.
I've also been looking through your latest posts, and to your complains about these, I can say this: We all of the UESP are just (more or less) normal people with more or less normal lifes. We don't spend our whole day looking at talk pages and wether someone posted something new or not. If you need help on a specific problem in a game, the Reference Desk would be the place to go. Then, there are questions that are of interest, but noone of those reading it knows the answer. If there's something you're really interested in, conduct tests for yourself. For many questions, we can't do anything else: Go in the game, try something out, and see what happens. I've taken care of two of your other questions.
On talk page posts in general: We, as a wiki, document game facts. Speculative discussions belong to the forums. We get a lot of speculative posts that are clearly forum material, but sometimes, it's debatable wether something is too speculative or suited for a talk page. Different editors may have different opinions on this, too. And sometimes, we are a little too quick by clicking undo and stamp something as forum material, may it just be so that we don't need to think about it any longer. We're humans, after all. There is a policy stating that we must not modify talk posts of other users unless for very major problems.
I am sorry if you feel offended by our community, but maintaining such a large database of several games where a lot of people make all kinds of edits isn't easy, especially with that much new contend presented to us by ESO. I hope you'll continue to try to help improving the Wiki. -- SarthesArai Talk 19:06, 15 March 2015 (GMT)
If you want me to help improve the Wiki, then stop deleting everything I post! If something seemed too forum-like, you should've pointed me to the Reference Desk in the first place instead of just saying "No, this doesn't belong here" and erasing it. Other than that, I really don't see what I'm doing wrong. Maybe it's the standards of the site that need improving, so that everyone can stop acting like they have a ten-meter pole shoved up their rectum about what is notable and what isn't. Just because this site isn't TV Tropes doesn't mean we can't be more flexible with the content of articles.Bauglir100 (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2015 (GMT)
Many topics demand some synthesis of sources, but I didn't see much source support offered here. It was a series of unsourced assertions. I'm sorry for your frustration, Bauglir, and I sympathize, because there have been plenty of times where I wanted to say something more, to push a subject a bit further, but didn't have the sources to back it up properly. I think in this case there was also newer information available which has yet to be fully disseminated. There's also the ever-present wrinkle that gameplay experiences don't always give us an accurate and comprehensive depiction of things from a lore perspective. I saw no children in Cyrodiil, for example, but I can assume they existed.
The aim is not to reach conclusions for the readers, but to state facts supported by reasonable evidence in such a way that will lead them to the correct understanding of the topic on their own. It's the very fine line between world-building and world-documenting. I think your summation was just a bit too ambitious with the conclusions it was trying to impart. And every time informed readers see a conclusion which they find questionable, it potentially harms the UESP's overall credibility in their eyes. But if you could elucidate the basis for your conclusions, we still might be able to include some element of what you wanted to say. Please try not to take reversions or disagreements to heart. We're all just doing the best we can; no one is out to get you. It's just like the edit summary says: everyone should expect and assume that their additions will be scrutinized and edited mercilessly. It's necessary to stay dispassionate. And please take it easy on Legoless. I think he was just the messenger here. Thanks for your efforts.Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 22:21, 15 March 2015 (GMT)
Posting stuff that has sources or not isn't the problem here, it's people that feel the need to talk down to me and say "This detail is so minor that it's not worth mentioning on the article at all." Really, it shouldn't be some kind of guessing game as to whether it's good enough for the article or not, even if the sources are 100% valid. I can understand why it's not important for an encyclopedia to mention how Staada is the only redheaded Golden Saint in Oblivion, or list all the ways the Golden Saints and Aurorans are similar to each other, or how there aren't any female Nords/Orcs/Redguards anywhere in the Shivering Isles, but people shouldn't just act like it's all stuff I just made up. And yes, I suppose it's not necessary to mention something that's a result of game mechanics in Lorespace, but even on the proper game pages, people still remove such notes. Bauglir100 (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2015 (GMT)
Questioning something's notability shouldn't be construed as a personal insult. Nobody is talking down to you on purpose. —Legoless (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2015 (GMT)


You've been continually reminded of site policy when it comes to speculation on lore articles. These two recent edits directly conflict with this ethos. This is also not the first time you've chosen to ignore community input. If you can't use your best judgement when it comes to these edits, I have to ask you to bring future edit suggestions of this nature to the talk page for discussion before adding them. I understand that you have a certain interest in humanoid Daedra, but your refusal to abide by lorespace guidelines is becoming disruptive and may be considered edit warring. As I've said before, the forums are the place to talk about these things. —Legoless (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2015 (GMT)

Understood. I'll be careful about these guidelines from now on. Thanks for the reminder. :) Bauglir100 (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2015 (GMT)

Edit WarringEdit

You are on the brink of edit warring over the Morrowind:NPCs article. If you have a disagreement over the contents of the article, please take it to the talk page for discussion. Any further attempts to revert that section of the page may result in your account being blocked from editing. Zul do onikaanLaan tinvaak 01:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I DO hope you sent the same message to the other guy, or this is really gonna make things very awkward. Besides, I've already made a compromise that I'm sure we might both agree with. Bauglir100 (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't really have a problem with the content of your original edit, just the way you phrase and present it. There are many factors that determine what generic dialogue an NPC has at any given time, and the cell location they happen to be in is just one of them. It's not like there's special unique dialogue written only for Umbra to say in Solstheim, he's just saying what any other NPC in that area with the same attributes would say. I tried to make the more general, broadly applicable point that NPC dialogue is dynamically available based on certain criteria, INCLUDING location, rather than your original edit which exclusively talked about the location-based criteria. -- Hargrimm(T) 01:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This was a heads-up intended to inform you that what you were doing was not constructive, and would result in a block if it went further. There's no reason to be hostile, especially considering that that's ANOTHER thing that could result in disciplinary actions. Zul do onikaanLaan tinvaak 01:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
It's already been dealt with, since I've put both paragraphs into one to get the whole story. Moving on now. Bauglir100 (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you were able to resolve the issue, but in the future, could you please try to discuss controversial changes on the talk page rather than reverting until a solution is reached? Back-and-forth editing clogs up the recent changes page, and trying to resolve disagreements through edit summaries rarely works out for the best. Creating a talk page discussion is an all-around more effective way of resolving disputes. Zul do onikaanLaan tinvaak 15:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Bauglir100".