User talk:DragonFire

Welcome!

Hello DragonFire! 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
• Help Contents: a list of in-depth Help pages
• Quick Editing Guide: a quick guide to wiki markup
• Getting Started: how you can help

If you would like to spice up your userpage, click here for a list of userboxes you can use, including a guide to making 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. Have fun! —Kitkat ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 17:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Recently you've been putting down "grammar edits" and similar edit summaries when all you've done is mark the page as checked for the SRQRP (such as in this edit) and/or add a header to the page. It would be a lot nicer if you could leave an accurate edit summary; a very good one in this case would be "SRQRP checked, obchecked, reward written". Leaving a misleading edit summary makes people think you've done something else. As someone who checks grammar and does not check redesign projects, I am more suited to checking edits with edit summaries such as "grammar edits"; people who are involved in the SRQRP are more prone to checking edits with summaries related to the project, but they cannot always check this is you don't indicate that such is what you have done.

So, please leave accurate edit summaries in the future, so that people can know what you've actually done, as is the purpose of an edit summary. Thanks! Vely^{►Talk►Email} 21:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

SRQRP

Hey DragonFire! You have marked an awful lot of quest pages a s checked these past few days – while we appreciate the effort with the grammar mentioned by Vely above, I want to make a few of the project guidelines clear. The checking stage is NOT just about grammar and wording, it’s about playing through the quest and ensure that the article contains every appropriate detail about the quest at hand. Yesterday, I tweaked the project page to make clear what is expected from the project members – and in this thread you can find out a lot more about how complex this project is. In short, it will never take you less than one-two hours to check a quest page – and the majority of the articles you have marked as checked doesn’t live up to the guidelines. I’m sorry for this late response (I saw your questions a bit too late), but I hope you understand what I mean. If you want specific suggestions on how to check specific quest pages, feel free to hit me on my talk page. All the best, --Krusty 21:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)