User talk:Elliot/Archives/2009/July

Today is Saturday, April 20, 2024, and the current time is 06:15 EST. There are currently 97,600 articles on the UESPWiki.

Archives

2009
May • June • July • Aug

Sept • Oct • Nov • Dec

2010
Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr

May • June • July • Aug

Sept • Oct • Nov • Dec

2011
Jan • Feb • March • April

May • June • July • Aug

Sept • Oct • Nov • Dec

Other
Cookies • Stars • Warnings

Thanks!

I was about to ask someone if I should make that redirect go straight to the weapon name or leave it going to the general header. Thanks! - User:Aces Andre 13:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem! I help wherever I can. :) –Elliot^(T-C) 13:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

New here

Hi, I am new here and I am looking for a mentor to help me editing my personal page! I wanna know how to put the images saying "This user is knowledgeable about" and the other stuff!
Rogerhnn User_talk:Rogerhnn

Re: "Inn of Ill Omen" Revision

Hi Elliot,

I thank you for patrolling my latest edits and I found the majority of your fixes necessary/justified. However, you recently undid an edit in which I added Rufio as an occupant of the Inn of Ill Omen. On the Oblivion-Place-Descriptions page, it states that the format for place descriptions includes "Occupant (if multiple occupants, generally just provide the single most important type of occupant)". I feel that Rufio, being a quest-related NPC, is significant enough to qualify. — Unsigned comment by Daft (talk • contribs) at 03:44 on 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It is generally used on houses to include the occupant/owner. However, figuring Rufio is part of a single small quest and isn't the proprietor, I feel it is not necessary to include it. Also, the organization is a bit skewed. I will go through and see where it shows up. I might add it if I feel those pages lack the information. –Elliot^(T-C) 03:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

After further investigation, it seems that all inns do not state regulars to the inn within the description. So, no, we will not add it to the Inn of Ill Omen. –Elliot^(T-C) 04:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Protect Tags

Your use of protect tags on Oblivion:Vidkun was completely inappropriate; read the guidelines. --Nephele^Talk 02:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. However, as I have told rpeh, there was no malicious intent in doing so or a push to withhold my own opinion of the article. I was just intending to shut down the conflict. Also, I confused the policies with Wikipedia's as I have been editing that site for the past few days. It won't happen again as it was a slight misunderstanding on my behalf. –Elliot^(T-C) 12:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, being on Wikipedia myself, I can vouch for the very different policies there vs. here. Ignoring, for the moment, that Patrollers are only supposed to protect talk page warnings, in a case like that where you might be seen to have bias (due to being involved in the edit war), you're best off getting a second opinion in any event. I think those were good-faith edits, and it appeared that you two were working towards a consensus, even if somewhat disjointedly. ;) --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 03:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

UESPWiki Userbox

Just FYI, as indicated in my edit summary, I just shamelessly stole your "been on UESPWiki" Userbox. Great idea! You should post that as a formal template...or at least I'd support it if you did. --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 22:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem! I got it off Wikipedia, I just UESPed it a little and made some tweaks. Go ahead! --Elliot^(T-C) 07:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hey, thanks for the warm welcome, I'm Jayden. If I read that LGBT userbox on your page correctly, we have something in common! Take care. Jayden Matthews 17:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Feel free to add it to your userpage if you would like! --Elliot^(T-C) 17:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, cool. Will do, when I get around to making it, not quite sure where to start. Jayden Matthews 17:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a few of us around here that I'm aware of, Jayden. Welcome to the Wiki! :) --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 22:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

Can you be more careful with edit summaries please? This one makes it sound like you're replacing information based on nothing more than a gut feeling about what seems "right". Doing that is to assume bad faith.

The later edit summary ("changing back to 3 months per IRC discussion") isn't acceptable either. If there was a discussion on IRC that caused a page to be changed, the reasons should be recorded on the wiki or what non-IRCers see is "There was a discussion about this but I'm not telling you what happened".

Looking at the Quest Acceptance dialogue, it appears that three months is correct, but it wouldn't be the first time that there was a mismatch between what appears on the screen and what happens in the game. You should bear that kind of thing in mind. –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 06:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I do/will. The first one was an interrupted edit, since something else preoccupied my mind I came back to the edit and forgot why I was reverting it. I was basing it off of the article, as you mentioned. And the second one... would it be better if I just left out the IRC part? Adding it to the talk page seemed to be unnecessary for a single number, which is still on the page. Even so, I need a break. --Elliot^(T-C) 07:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't access IRC right now so I don't know what the discussion was. If it could be summarised in one line, use that as the edit summary. If not, it needs a post on the talk page to explain what was decided and how. –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 07:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

glarthir

did i do the glarthir post right? — Unsigned comment by American Dude (talk • contribs) at 23:11 on 16 July 2009

My Warning

Sorry. I just thought it would be funny. — Unsigned comment by 98.218.185.248 (talk) at 05:26 on 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand, just don't do it again. --Elliot^(T-C) 05:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Oblivion:The_Elven_Maiden

With a low sneak skill the guards see you. I wasn't that low and found it hard since sneak wasn't a major skill so it hadn't got the extra boost. Rather then wait around until the guards go away i DID see it as a very good method to get in. — Unsigned comment by 86.42.210.25 (talk) on July 21, 2009

Involving multiple people who could potentially kill you while you run away and try to break into a house isn't the first method that should be tried. That is why I removed it. --Elliot^(T-C) 18:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You're Doing It Again

This edit summary is out of order. Firstly, the information that the anon editor added is quite correct, as you would see if you followed the link to Muurine's page. Secondly, threatening a punishment in an edit summary is totally inappropriate. If you want to comment on a user's posts, you should do it on their talk page. –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 07:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless if it was semi-correct, 24,000 or any number is unique for each gamer. Second, the information didn't even need to be on the page: Muurine's inventory shouldn't be on this page. It will appear on her own page in due course. Where does it say that I cannot "threaten in an edit summary?" There seem to be a bunch of secret rules that admins think editors can follow with common sense or just try to hide from us. Trust me, I look at the rules before doing anything (do stop people harping on the MINUSCULE relatively bad things I do). I found no such case. These "rules" need to be put into print, because I keep getting backdoored into them. --Elliot^(T-C) 15:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

See UESPWiki:Policies_and_Guidelines#Desired_Etiquette. –Eshe^talk 15:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no place where it says anything of the sort.

If you need to elaborate, simply conclude your edit summary with "see talk", and promptly explain the edit on the talk page.

That doesn't cut it. That does not explain why I am getting yelled at. Also, if I remember rpeh, you said the wiki is not perfect, so sometimes we can't prove something on one page with a note on another. Also, this. I merely did the same exact thing. I just added a note about how adding the same info without elaborating would warrant a warning, which it would. I ask for more define policies, because the ones I have read are completely gray and can be manipulated to do anything within reason. --Elliot^(T-C) 15:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I was referring in particular to other points in that section:

"Be civil when talking to other people, and treat them with respect and kindness. Encourage others to be nice as well, and be careful not to unintentionally present yourself as being uncivil."

"Assume good faith. In contrast, assume that others are trying to help the wiki and not harm it unless you have evidence to the contrary. Don't ignore bad actions, but try your best to assume that they are wanting to help."

"When in doubt, discuss. Consensus, even if it is between just two people, will aid in the improvement of articles. We have all the time in the world to discuss changes, and we have plenty of places to do it. If you discuss changes before you make them, you can reach a consensus faster and people will have a better understanding about why you are making the changes."

In this situation, you failed to assume good faith and did not maintain a civil tone in your edit summaries. Yes, other editors have been guilty of the same, but such actions were discussed with those users as well. We strive to advise instead of making threats. Just because the information this user added was not exactly true does not mean he or she was intentionally adding false information to the page. It is also highly preferable to start a discussion instead of repeatedly reverting an edit (which, as you know, can spark edit wars).

We do not "harp" on these actions for no reason. While it may seem to you like you're being hounded for something small, we take the Assume Good Faith rule seriously. We address these issues because you are a valuable editor and we want to see you learn from these mistakes. Please take this constructive criticism seriously and consider taking responsibility for your actions instead of pointing fingers at those who are trying to help you. –Eshe^talk 16:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I assumed good faith. Reverted and asked for an elaboration. They added it again. Reverted. Asked for an elaboration. They added it again. Reverted. Asked for an elaboration.

A verbal warning is no different than an actual warning. I was tempted to add a warning right there, but I decided the best process would to just add something in the edit summary. But no, I mess up... "again." Maybe I get set off from the initialization of "You're doing it again." That, too me, sounds like harping. And like all my edits are being watched, looking for an opportunity to strike me down, since there have been verbal proclamations of wanting to remove my status. And again, I request for more define policies, since I still see no reason as to why I couldn't make a verbal "threat" before warning. Yeah, maybe I did overreact. But acting as if I am the sole person making mistakes is beyond agitating. The more that gets thrown at me in a sly manner, the less I take from each "event." It seems to me as well that people think I have some malicious intent in my actions. Well, I am saying it right here and right now: I DON'T! Also, you want me to learn? Then why does it seem as if people are taking "haughty" attitudes whenever they give me advice (no, they don't give me advice, they yell)? I know I am not perfect, and neither are you. The only reason I get worked up is because of the manner it is given. Anywho, I guess I'll get back to editing. Thanks for the tip rpeh, I'll keep it in mind. And sorry for going off the deep end!

“If we were faultless we should not be so much annoyed by the defects of those with whom we associate.”

--Elliot^(T-C) 16:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with either of the edit summaries you've listed. If you look further I'm sure you'll find bad ones that I, or other people, have made but this isn't really the point. Neither of those edit summaries contained a threat, which is the main issue here.

As in the earlier example, you assumed information added to an article was incorrect without doing any checking yourself. It's true that a specific figure of 24,000 clubs was incorrect but the general point is well-established, and if we threatened everybody who added game-specific information we'd run out of disk space.

It would have been nice if the user had spotted your first request for more information and asked about it either on your talk page or the article's talk page, but that's life. Assuming bad faith and threatening a warning is not acceptable anywhere - not just in an edit summary. This wasn't a clear-cut case of vandalism, it wasn't somebody deleting useful information with no explanation, it was somebody making what they thought was a helpful addition. There is no way such an edit deserved the threat you made. –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 17:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I know I was wrong; however adding this again will warrant a false info warning is not a threat in the often used connotative manner. Even you admit that 24,000 is outlandish, so why would constantly adding it not warrant a warning? Also, the edit that you mention was based on a check with the same article itself. That is by no means wrong. It was just the edit summary was exactly clear, which I went through hell and high water to uphold. But that isn't the point. Yes, it would have been nice, but here I am getting yelled at while they go free. That is my main problem. I was trying to protect the integrity of the site, not harm it; please, understand that. --Elliot^(T-C) 17:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(2 edit conflicts/outdent) As I have tried to explain, your procedure in this situation was less than ideal. Instead of repeatedly reverting the edit, you should have started a discussion on the talk page. Rpeh pointed out that the information the user was adding was not necessarily false, and the fact that it wasn't completely accurate is not indicative of a person intentionally adding false information. Therefore the edit does not warrant any kind of warning and threatening to administer a warning was not appropriate.

Please understand that you are not being singled out here. While it is natural to feel victimized when you receive criticism, rest assured that we're just trying to help. Instead of retaliating with examples of mistakes other editors have made, work on improving your own methods. If you disagree with another user's actions, you should start an appropriate discussion with that user rather than citing their alleged mistakes as justification for your own.

We all know you're just trying to help the site. As we've told you many times, you've done a lot of good work around here. A mistake here and there does not undo all the good things you've done. However, you should remember that we're just trying to help the site too. While it may seem petty, maintaining a polite and welcoming community is extremely beneficial to the site as a whole and we work hard with that goal in mind.

Also, please keep in mind that because of the nature of our work, we are forced to communicate through text and it can be very difficult to read another person's tone. Rpeh was giving you constructive criticism; any indication that you're being yelled at is regrettable, but unintentional. If you're feeling attacked, take a moment before typing up a reply and take the high road. –Eshe^talk 17:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. And thanks. --Elliot^(T-C) 17:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Just as a side note to this discussion, we do have a set of Patrolling Guidelines in place. When I first became a Patroller, I did some work on them, and was hoping other more-experienced Patrollers and Admins would contribute too, but as you can see from the edit history for that page, that never happened. ;) Perhaps it's something that we should post to the Community Portal or the Patrollers' Talk Page and try to get some input from others on and really finalize it so that it can be a more concrete document for new and experienced Patrollers alike. --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 19:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I need help

What do u have to type into the console to add urself to a faction? I read an article on it but i still cant do it. Doom Knight 04:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I play 360, so I am not too sure. At first thought I do not believe this is possible. --Elliot^(T-C) 04:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Use the SetFactionRank console command. Full instructions are on that page, and there's a link there to the full list of factions. –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 07:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks rpeh! I knew I saw it somewhere (glad to see I'm not crazy!). I was checking the Oblivion:Console page, where it isn't listed. It's kind of weird that both of those exist/aren't parallel. Oh well, thanks again. --Elliot^(T-C) 07:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Improvements

I see your trying to improve the UESP website. I was wondering if you could tell me any specific that pages that need improving. I have the 360 version of oblivion so im limited to what i can fully find out but i really enjoy the game and probably do my best to find out anyway Liam head 08:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not Elliot, but I can answer too. Take a look here, and pick something that suits your fancy. Wolok gro-Barok 09:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Be careful with that page because some of those tasks that aren't marked done are actually done. One thing that always needs done is grammar and spelling. Sometimes people just make tiny errors that can go unnoticed for quite sometime. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask! --Elliot^(T-C) 18:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You deserve this

You have been given a cookie! Your dedication and diligence to the wiki has not gone unnoticed. A user has seen the progress you've made, and has given you a cookie because of it. Good work! The user had the following to say: Hi Elliot. I just want to thank you for your daily commitment to the UESPWiki. Amazing! Wolok gro-Barok 16:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I do my best! --Elliot ^talk 20:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the information about vampirism!— Unsigned comment by Erlend (talk • contribs) on 27 July 2009

No problem!. --Elliot ^talk 20:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

You have been given a cookie! Your dedication and diligence to the wiki has not gone unnoticed. A user has seen the progress you've made, and has given you a cookie because of it. Good work! The user had the following to say: Thanks alot for all the help with my userpage =D --Tabloes 23:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for the cookie! --Elliot ^talk 00:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Patroller redlinks

Apart from the one I just fixed, what other redlinks did you have in mind - or can that redirect be deleted? –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 09:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I was fixing up the Special:Preferences and the Special:ListGroupRights pages, in case someone stumbled upon them and wanted to know more information. They are just minor fixes, but it gives a better look to the pages without compromising substance. The redirect I created could be deleted if the UESPWiki:Patrollers page were renamed UESPWiki:Patroller. I just don't think we should have red links when it comes to providing more information concerning priviledges within the site. –Elliot ^talk 09:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh ok then

When a staff runs out I keep poking with it, I assumed it was melee because I thought I killed someone with it once...guess not. — Unsigned comment by HighDrive (talk • contribs) at 09:46 on 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I can understand the misconception. The staff animation is the same even once you run out of charge. –Elliot ^talk 09:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

templates

Could you show me a link so the templates page plz??? im starting to help out =D but i justr figured out im using the old, out-of-date ones i received when i first started =/ — Unsigned comment by Tabloes (talk • contribs) at 00:46 on 29 July 2009 (UTC)

They can be found at UESPWiki:Messages. There is a link at the top of the Recent Changes listing. –Elliot ^talk 00:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

opps stupid mistake by me =P im new to trying to patrol but now i think i can do it =D thanks for link! — Unsigned comment by Tabloes (talk • contribs) at 00:53 on 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Make sure you sign your posts as well! :) –Elliot ^talk 00:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

another cookie =D

You have been given a cookie! Your dedication and diligence to the wiki has not gone unnoticed. A user has seen the progress you've made, and has given you a cookie because of it. Good work! The user had the following to say: Basically for putting up with my poor editing/patrolling lol, thanks! --Tabloes 01:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)(UTC)

Thanks! –Elliot ^talk 01:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Alc Calc x 2

Hi Elliott. I'm just curious why you added a second {{alc calc}} link in this edit. Was that just a goof, or is there some reason to have the second one that I'm not aware of? --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 02:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the way it was previously set up made the link not show up. So I quickly added it without paying attention. I just need to fix it right this time :) –Elliot ^talk 02:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see the problem now! Thanks for looking at it. --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 03:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Bible of the Deep ones

Hello im new hear but know alot about Oblivion (i came here alot before i became a member), but right to the point ive done a little Searching and have found out the Pages in the Bible of The Deep ones from the Hackdirt quest is written in Deadric but have failed (so far) in trying to Decipher it my self and have wondered if u guys had or are adding a Translation — Unsigned comment by Softtaco021 (talk • contribs) at 07:20 on 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It can be found here. –Elliot ^talk 07:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

hey thanks :)— Unsigned comment by 205.209.240.235 (talk) at 03:26 on 31 July 2009 (UTC)

EEK

Sorry about that, I'll be sure to use the show prievew from now on.-Kaito 09:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem; just giving you a heads-up. –Elliot ^talk 10:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)