User talk:SkoomaManiac/Archive 1< User talk:SkoomaManiac
|This is an archive of past User talk:SkoomaManiac discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.|
Hello SkoomaManiac! 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:
- Policies and Guidelines: UESPWiki standards and expectations
- Quick Editing Guide: a quick guide to wiki markup
- Getting Started: how you can help
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!).
Oh, and one last thing. I noticed you added a link to City-Swimmer on my talk page. While that's fine with me, you should actually refrain from altering other people's posts, certainly when it's on someone's talk page. That is considered taboo. I hope you understand this, and won't do it again. For the rest: Have Fun! --Talk Wolok gro-Barok Contributions 10:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, Wolok. I do understand about the talk page. Thank you for welcoming me to UESP. I've been a long time lurker of sorts, but I just created an account this month. I hope to help UESP grow and mature.
SkoomaManiac 17:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Please be carefulEdit
Please be careful when you are editing. Edits like this, even if it is a mistake, could easily be recognized as a personal attack and net you a warning. Thank you. --Krusty 08:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to point out that it's always a good idea to wait until a new editor makes a couple of edits before welcoming them. This is for two reasons; we obviously don't want vandals being welcomed to the site, and the majority of new accounts never make a single contribution, so welcoming them is pointless and a waste of your time. Thanks for your intrest in contributing though, and keep up the good work! Kitkat xxx •Talk•Contrib•E-mail 06:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I see you've decided to pick up the task of splitting Nanette Don's page in a few sections. As a side not, I just wanted to point out that when Krusty referred to a "sandbox" he meant a userspace one, like this one, rather than one attached to the page in question like you did [[Shivering:Nanette Don/Sandbox/Adding Sections|here]]. No need to worry about it now, just remember to prod it when you're done, but keep that in mind in the future.
So I've seen your attempt and would like to suggest a few amendments. Firstly, I don't think the "Passwall" section is needed - most decent NPC pages are more or less the length of Nanette's article up to the second section, and the page looks nicer without it. Secondly, for consistency with our SI "VIP" pages, you may want to rename the other two sections as is done on this page: with the name of the quest. --SerCenKing Talk 09:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism, and what's not vandalismEdit
I've seen that you revert a lot of edits with a summary of "vandalism" (example:  ). Please have a look at Wikipedia:Vandalism, especially at the "What is not vandalism" section. Often it is better to assume good faith, an edit summary along the line of "unexplained deletion" or whatever the concern is may be more appropriate in such situations. --Alfwyn 17:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'll keep it in mind. I'm suspicious of completely blanked pages and sections, and if you look closely I think you'll find that only one of those reverts were questionable, and the rest were primarily vandal IP addresses. –SkoomaManiac 18:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- In addition, there are things that are obviously vandalism. When an unregistered user deletes large sections of text or replaces it with "penis penis vagina" it's clearly vandalism and should be marked as such. And if it somehow isn't, I'd rather have to apologize then let an article stay damaged. –SkoomaManiac 18:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I feel that it is necessary, once again, to remind of what is expected of users and userspace patrollers. You recent edit regarding talk page deletion was in fact incorrect. As long as it is the user's own talk page, they are free to blank it (warning and block notices don't count). Another problem I saw was regarding this edit. While it is correct that sandboxes should not be edited by anyone other than the owner. Nephele gave explicit permission within the first paragraph that anyone could edit the page. It's important that you keep an eye for such notices, especially if you plan on discussing it with someone else. Lastly, this edit on Br3admax's page disturbed me. Not only did you call a new user a vandal, which he is by no means, you scolded Br3admax for welcoming him. This does not assume good faith, and I have already informed you above that blanking is not vandalism.
I would recommend that you take a few steps back and watch how other users interact with the new users or just slow down when it comes to patrolling. Also, it is better that you ask about a potential policy instead of guessing on them. This isn't meant to discourage you from editing or anything, but we want to make sure that everyone is on the same page when it comes to these "unwritten" or oft-ignored policies. Thanks. elliot (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I incorrectly extrappalated that one shouldn't remove posts from talk pages. I apologize for being overly zealous. However, it is not within your rights to scold me for something that I made a mistake about and apologized for (I didn't see the permission on Nephele's page and Robin himself said it was unclear. I apologized. In public.), and on the Vandalism page which you pointed me to in your last edit, it mentions that page blanking is a form of vandalism. If you'll look at my talk history, I was scolded as a new editor for welcoming new users too quickly. Please don't jump to the conclusion that I don't know what I'm talking about. It CLEARLY STATES that blanking is vandalism especially without a proper edit summary. And as far as the "Don't welcome users that haven't made edits/have only made questionable edits", I am merely paying forward what I have learned thus far on the site. —SkoomaManiac 03:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- As a user of this site (and one that has been here for a long time), it is well within my rights to point out things others may be doing wrong (such as you have continuously been doing). You did something wrong; I pointed it out. And no, it does not "clearly state" that it is vandalism. Reading it over, it states that Any edit made in good faith is not vandalism. Period. Calling someone a vandal after an edit that could very well be considered an accident could be considered a personal attack (see Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal").
- Also, I didn't jump to a conclusion. I saw a pattern of incorrect advice, and I sought to correct it. This isn't a huge deal or anything; it's just better to understand the policies before chastising users about said policies. That it all. elliot (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Just forget it, its no big deal. I checked the page as well:
Removing some or all content from pages without explanation, especially when done to multiple articles on the site or when the content is replaced with profanities. It is not necessarily vandalism when the editor was attempting to inappropriately delete the page or when the reason for the content removal was apparent upon examination of the removed content. In addition, some browsers cannot handle the volume of text and will send a corrupted or snipped version of the article back to the database. Because of the possibilities for unintentional and good faith page blanks, strong warnings against page blanking is not recommended except for blatant instances of vandalism.
Hope that clears things up. --Br3admax 03:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- You said to take a step back and look at how other users interact with new users. This is how I was interacted with as a new user. This is how I have seen others users interact with users period. At no point was my tone inappropriate. I was very gentle, except for calling Skyrim101 a vandal, and I'm still not sure his edit falls into the "mistake" or "good-faith" edit category considering his edit summary was something to the effect of "Blanked entire page".
- And yes, you are well within your rights to make corrections as you see fit, but you should also consider the tone with which you make corrections. You actually assumed bad faith by bringing up one of those (the one I apologized for publicly after being corrected for it by another user who made allowances for the fact that it wasn't entirely clear at a glance that permission was grated to edit, and considering I was following a general rule of thumb regarding sandboxes). —SkoomaManiac 03:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Elliot: I understand your intent, but you were a little bit on the firm side for something that, by your own words, wasn't a huge deal. In any event, Skooma gets the idea, I think, and it's not unusual for mistakes to be made by new Userpatrollers/Patrollers. – Robin Hood↝talk 03:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I never said you weren't trying to be helpful. I was merely stating that you were going against policy multiple times. But I guess I will quote myself: Calling it vandalism does not assume good faith, which could lead to problems down the road. You decided to ignore the advice given, and, as I predicted, it continued. elliot (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oh. Interesting. I'm still unconvinced it counts as a good faith edit, however, I digress as far as that goes. --SkoomaManiac 04:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Elliot, you're missing my point. My point (if you'll read my replies), is not whether he is a vandal. It is more about your tone and assuming bad faith by rehashing issues that were obvious mistakes. If you want to clear up any wiki policy you believe me to be misinformed about, I suggest you shoot me an email. If not, then please give me the benefit of the doubt. I am not perfect, and despite having been here a long time, I've been actively editing a month at most. There's a bit of a learning curve I'm getting used to. Thank you. SkoomaManiac 04:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello! You recently added the quest A Chance Arrangement to Knjakr. I cannot see how he is connected tho so im assuming this is a mistake and I removed it. If I am wrong however feel free to add it back. — Kimi the Elf (talk | contribs) 04:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I actually didn't add the quest in; I just deleted the comments section because someone forgot. However, their reasoning was probably that you have to fight him in the Ratway on the way to the Flaggon, so I didn't remove it. I'm not going to bother adding it back in, though, it could be considered a stretch and I'd rather it be dealt with later than try and justify an edit that wasn't even mine. –SkoomaManiac 11:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)