Open main menu

UESPWiki β

User talk:ThuumofReason/Archive 2

< User talk:ThuumofReason
This is an archive of past User talk:ThuumofReason discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

lmstearn's edits re "Advice" on User talk:LmstearnEdit

Sorry ThuumofReason, when editing, I did read the info underneath "Any changes will be visible as soon as you save the page..."

May I suggest something to the effect of: "but keep in mind that each edit needs to be patrolled, so multiple consecutive edits create an unnecessary hassle on those who patrol" be put on the edit page, possibly after "Please preview your edit (using the "Show preview" button) before selecting "Save page"."? Lmstearn (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2013 (GMT)

The message I left was actually part of a template. It's not a big deal, just as long as you know to use the Show Preview button in the future :-) ThuumofReason (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2013 (GMT)
As for the message on the editing page, I believe that message is based on a standard wiki template, so changing it might be a bit difficult. ThuumofReason (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2013 (GMT)

Editing problemEdit

Hi, I am really confused about the issue. So someone, out of the sky comes up with a claim, (that has no basis, never mentioned and observed) and adds it to wiki. Then If I change it, why is it going to be reverted and being labeled as (verification needed). Why wouldn't the person who came up with a non-existing claim be warned about verification but me? — Unsigned comment by Heyjude (talkcontribs) at 21:47 on 24 October 2013‎

First of all, we don't know that the claim has no basis. Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. It's very possible that you are in fact right, but until we know for sure, it's better to just leave the previous version of the page as it is to avoid back-and-forth reversions while the discussion is going on. The reason your initial edit was reverted wasn't because it was wrong (we don't know whether or not it was), it was because it contradicted other information on the wiki, so the edit was removed until the issue could be sorted out.
Second, you're not being warned for verification. The issue isn't about what you're saying, but how you're saying it. By continually re-adding that information to the page and insisting that you're right on the talk page while refusing to acknowledge the possibility that you might be mistaken, you're not respecting our other users. Respect is very important between members of the UESP community, and when you attempt to prematurely shut down discussions, you're both preventing the issue from reaching consensus and being disrespectful to other users.
I know that you're not intentionally being disrespectful, which is why I left a notice on your page rather than an official warning. You're not in trouble or anything, and you're not being criticized. I just wanted to make sure you knew that some of the things you've been doing are against the rules, and there are consequences for repeatedly breaking the rules. I wanted to make sure you knew how to change the way you edit before you actually DO get in trouble. If you haven't already, you might want to check out a few of the links I left on your page. Hope this helps! ThuumofReason (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2013 (GMT)

Clarification on SomethingEdit

I left a reply to you on Skyrim_talk:Ulfric_Stormcloak#Combat_Dialogue_Layout, but the topic got closed before you could reply to me. Could you reply to me on here instead of continuing a closed discussion on Ulfric Stormcloak's talk page? DGTC 21:35, 28 October 2013 (GMT)

No, I don't think it's pointless to bring up old discussions. What's pointless is to continue arguing for something when it has already been established that consensus is against it. I told you once that consensus and etiquette are the two most important principles for the operation of this wiki; that's a lesson I don't think you've ever fully understood. I've done my best to help you understand. So has everyone else. We've given you the notices, we've linked you to the policies, and quite frankly, we've been more patient with you than we have with many other editors who cause controversy. I can't speak for everyone else, but my patience with you is at its limit.
At this point, you're beyond our help. We've tried to give you help, and yet you refuse to accept it. Until you accept our help, there's nothing more any of us can do to help you. We've done our part by giving you the tools you need to succeed; now you have to do your part by using them. ThuumofReason (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2013 (GMT)

Your message on White Storm's talkpage:Edit

It raises a question: if we only document the unofficial patches, why is there so much in the TES3Mod:Tamriel Rebuilt namespace? I've wondered for a while anyway why we include that but we don't have a TES4Mod:Reclaiming Sancre Tor, TES5Mod:Wyrmstooth, TES5Mod:Falskaar, or others. I'm not proposing we include these, or remove TR, just curious about the logic behind this decision. Xolroc (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2013 (GMT)

My guess would be that it's content that is "grandfathered in' it was acceptable when the content was originally added but the rules have changed. Like Oblivion:Roleplaying or the Easter Egg pages for previous games. --AN|L (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2013 (GMT)
The TESMod namespaces are treated a little differently from the gamespaces from what I understand, although modding is rather outside my area of expertise. I've never really paid too much attention to issues relating to modspace because I never use mods, so I'm not really the right person to ask about the reasoning.
What I do know is that outside of modspace (and userspace, which in terms of content is more or less free game, with some restrictions), the Accurate and Verifiable clause necessitates that everyone is playing the same game, and adding unofficial mods just makes things more complicated. The community portal archives probably have a few discussions about how modspace should be treated, so I would check there first. If it seems like there's still some split opinion on the subject, you can always bring it up again on the community portal. ThuumofReason (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2013 (GMT)
Just to expand on my edit summary, I've removed the post in question. In the User Recommendations section, pages like White Storm's are fine. If you click on some of the other pages there, you'll find there's lots of external links in the various pages people have set up. That's pretty much what that section is for. Robin Hood  (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2013 (GMT)
Yeah, I realized that after I made the edit, but I wasn't sure how to handle it. Thanks for clearing that up for me. ThuumofReason (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2013 (GMT)

Online:WerewolfEdit

There is not much we know about Werewolves in Online. Gameplay could be different.

Also, why is it a stub? It is up to date for now. And, in the above sentence, adding more is speculation. DGAny Questions? 19:01, 30 October 2013 (GMT)

It's a stub because there's not enough information for there to be a full article. Whether or not the information is available is irrelevant; until the game is released and the page is a satisfactory length, it will be a stub. ThuumofReason (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2013 (GMT)
All Online articles are being marked with stub to avoid unnecessary editing later on to add it if needed. It is extremely unlikely that the article is complete anyway. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 19:11, 30 October 2013 (GMT)
Of course the article isn't complete! What'd you expect? The article created and being completed at the same time? *chuckle* DGAny Questions? 19:16, 30 October 2013 (GMT)
Which is why it is marked as a stub. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 19:21, 30 October 2013 (GMT)

Respose to my Talk pageEdit

Hey Thuum of Reason. I know most of my edits have been to my talk page, well... lately all my edits have been there (and maybe a bit much). I used to go about and see where I could make edits, but most articles don't seem to need much for edits. I usually edit when I catch things, but my knowledge is far from infinite. xD;; Next to that I'm never too sure if I don't step on toes with certain things, I mostly add if I find something lacking of details, but I don't easily change things that are already written since there might be reason to certain mistakes. In any case, I'm unsure if there's something about that requests changes and such. Anyhow, thanks for the suggestion and the post. x3 I'll take a look over the forums. Thanks again. Ylc0304 (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2013 (GMT)

My pleasure, and it's no trouble. :-) ThuumofReason (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2013 (GMT)

Vampire (lord) + conjuration perksEdit

are you sure it should be in vampire lord page? that page is all about abilities after transformation. The conjuration perks work for base vampire form. I'm not even sure if you have to have vampire lord form either or just normal vampire. I'm on console, can't easily delete something. — Unsigned comment by 205.206.75.3 (talk) at 19:10 on 11 December 2013 (GMT)

If you can only confirm that it happens to vampire lords, it should be on the vampire lord page. We try not to add anything to the wiki based on assumptions, so unless we know that it applies to regular vampires as well, it shouldn't be mentioned on the regular vampires page. ThuumofReason (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2013 (GMT)

Amulet Of Kings Message:Edit

Conjecture: I think it's a message, not dialogue. Therefore, I am confused as to how it's dialogue and not a message. — 90.210.227.232 14:05, 28 December 2013 (GMT)

It IS a message, but it's still a direct quote from the game, and is therefore italicized on the site. ThuumofReason (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2013 (GMT)

Tolfdir the Absent-Minded‎ quest stagesEdit

The quest log entry is taken directly from the game data. Now that entry isn't really displayed, but that property is shared with many quests that don't show their quest log entries ingame because they are not treated as full quests. Ideally we would find a nice way to mark all quest log text that isn't shown in the game and only found in the game data - this one is just a very noticeable case. --Alfwyn (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2013 (GMT)

Oh, okay. I thought that that was written by someone who didn't know how to properly format the quest stages and just stuck it in there without a template, I didn't know it was part of the actual quest files. Sorry about that! ThuumofReason (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2013 (GMT)

Thank youEdit

I just wanted to say thank you for what you wrote on my admin nomination, and that no apology is necessary. Anyone who runs for admin comes under a microscope, and sometimes there are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed. There were a lot of issues going on at the time, and no one can be faulted for voting based on the concerns presented. Robin Hood  (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2014 (GMT)

Thanks for being so understanding. It's just bugged me ever since that I let a few crazy allegations about "site politics" sway me from what I should have known all along. You're a great guy, and we're all lucky to have a friend like you around the wiki. ThuumofReason (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2014 (GMT)

Quest WalkthroughsEdit

Hey Thuum! Apologies for the rather ‘quick’ revert yesterday on Hitting the Books, but I was on my way to bed and figured I could wait until morning to write this talk page post. Now, I can see why you would clean up the page so drastically – since that is the way all walkthroughs in OB looks, and some people prefer that (?). However, quest walkthroughs in Skyrim are different as they represent the place where the actual story of the quest is told; what is going on, why do you have to do the things you do, how will the NPCs react, you get the picture. We have nowhere else to describe these things, and the project guidelines were put down as early to SR’s release as possible to ensure that we wouldn’t get another round of OB-like walkthroughs – where an otherwise excellent story is wasted with walkthroughs like “go from point A to point B to get through the quest as fast as possible*. What is included is up to the author – I tend to be more interested in the story than the quest itself (let’s face it, there is not a whole lot of variety in dungeon quests), so that is my personal approach when writing walkthroughs. As for dungeon descriptions, the quest pages should have unique, although brief, dungeon walkthroughs (enemies, boss chests, special occurrences) – while the place pages are the place where you can find anything, down to that bread loaf on the alchemy lab, without any story whatsoever. In quest walkthroughs, most descriptions of treasure (and key features like alchemy labs/arcane enchanters) are merely included to so the reader can find his/her own location in the dungeon and go from there – and to make the text flow better – while the place pages should be in-depth for explorers. So basically, we’re trying to inject a bit of story-telling into the walkthroughs, at times using NPC dialogue, simply to make them more interesting than what you can find elsewhere on the net. I hope that answered a few of your questions. --Krusty (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2014 (GMT)

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Krusty. I'll make sure to keep that in mind the next time I edit quest walkthroughs. ThuumofReason (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2014 (GMT)

Patrolling TipEdit

It's not a big deal, but just FYI, it's customary to let patroller-types patrol posts to their own talk pages unless it's something you've taken care of and no longer requires the patroller's input, or if it's a maintenance thing like marking a duplicate post as patrolled after you've removed it. Robin Hood  (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2014 (GMT)

Okay, I'll keep that in mind. Thanks, Robin. ThuumofReason (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2014 (GMT)

PatrollerEdit

Congratulations, you're now a patroller! Robin Hood  (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2014 (GMT)

Congrats, Thuum! I am happy to see you're now a part of the team! — ABCface 16:36, 8 June 2014 (GMT)
Thanks, guys! ThuumofReason (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2014 (GMT)

can I do thisEdit

Can I add welcome notices to new users pages or do I have to be a patroller to do that? Lorenut (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2014 (GMT)

Sorry Thuum, I'm going to steal this from you :P Lorenut: you may add welcome notices, but please wait to do so until they have at least one constructive edit. ~ Ad intellige (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2014 (GMT)
Thank you for answering Dominus! Will do. Lorenut (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2014 (GMT)
Make sure you add a section header when doing so! It looks like a form letter in the recent changes and page history when you don't. :p •WoahBro►talk 04:27, 16 June 2014 (GMT)
I'll remember to do that thanks.Lorenut (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2014 (GMT)
Well I made my first welcome. If someone is willing to check and see if I did it right, so I don't have to worry about it the next time I do it that would be great! If I made a mistake please let me know. Lorenut (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2014 (GMT)

() Looks good to me! •WoahBro►talk 06:32, 16 June 2014 (GMT)

Thank you Lorenut (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2014 (GMT)

(another) thank youEdit

I see there already a thank you section above and I don't think it's suitable for me to add mine there. so, Thank you Thuum. your explanation: "I removed the note in question because, if there is indeed a way to open it without using the console, it's not actually inaccessible, so there's no reason to give it any special notice." is right on target. I guess that's all, perhaps. I'll ask for your advice again if you don't mind in the future. once again, thanks. — Unsigned comment by Chikomitata (talkcontribs) at 17:19 on 17 June 2014 (GMT)

Not at all, that's what I'm here for. And you're welcome :-) ThuumofReason (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2014 (GMT)

Benirus Manor containersEdit

Hello. I am writing regarding this revision. Your version is actually not correct: The overturned dresser is replaced with a new ref (I checked in the CS), and the cupboard in the dining area is removed upon completion of the quest. Neither of them, or any other container in the house, is actually reset. All other containers are 100% safe for the player to use before completing the quest (meaning that they are non-respawning PC containers and are not otherwise removed by any scripts triggered during the quest), so warning players not to use any containers is a bit extreme. Thanks. Dbbolton (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2014 (GMT)

That was intended to condense the two notes into one, but thanks for the correction. I don't use the CS, so I'm glad you caught that. ThuumofReason (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2014 (GMT)

QueryEdit

What constitutes a "necro-post"? I ask because this is the first time I have encountered it. Is there a hard a fast rule, and if so is there a link to it and other patrolling criteria? Is it a matter of judgment? If so death may depend on perspective, 69 years vs 22 years does give each party a different outlook. I'm not looking to revert the page, nor am I seeking a justification, but it is difficult to obey the rules if they are unknown. Thanks for your work on the wiki. Kalevala (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2014 (GMT)

It's somewhat arbitrary, but generally speaking, a necropost is anything where an answer to the post would likely go unread by the original posters because of the amount of time that's passed, and where the post serves no other purpose (e.g., solving a long-standing mystery). There's some discussion of how best to deal with them and what "counts" on our Community Portal currently if you'd like to participate. Robin Hood  (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2014 (GMT)
Basically if a post is more than 3 months old and it doesn't provide any useful insight, it's generally considered to be a necropost, though it really depends on the situation. If the post is older than 3 months but provides useful new information on an issue that hasn't been resolved, it's acceptable to let it stay, but otherwise it's better to just create a new discussion. Zul se onikaanLaan tinvaak 16:59, 30 June 2014 (GMT)
Ok, that is perfectly understandable and something that I can agree with 100%. My necro-post was intended to offer the reader a method for resolving the little question mark that appeared in the level box by simply copying the correction from another page rather than editing it directly, a method that did not occur to me until later. Intent notwithstanding, that probably does not constitute an issue that hasn't been resolved. Thanks! Kalevala (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2014 (GMT)
You're welcome :-) Zul se onikaanLaan tinvaak 19:45, 30 June 2014 (GMT)
Prev: Archive 1 Up: User talk:ThuumofReason Next: None
Return to the user page of "ThuumofReason/Archive 2".