User talk:Jeancey/Zemle

Archives
Az	Buche	Vede
Glagole	Dobre	Iest
Jivete	Dzealo	Zemle
Ije	Caco

Comprised of

In regards to this edit, "comprised of" is one of those debatable phrases, but according to most dictionaries (e.g., Merriam-Webster), it's not actually grammatically incorrect, just...discouraged by some. I suspect the reason is that too many people try to use "comprises of", which is grammatically incorrect, and the rule to not use "of" after "comprise" just got extended. "Comprises" on its own would also work in that sentence, though that usage isn't heard as much anymore. My view on it is much the same as Merriam-Webster's: it's been in use for over 200 years, there's really no reason to call it incorrect at this point. The language has evolved to include that construct. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 19:31, 20 September 2014 (GMT)

I was always taught that because Comprise means to consist of, comprised of would mean consisted of of. Or rather, that was how I was taught to remember that it was grammatically incorrect. I have always hated the fact that because people use it incorrectly, it becomes correct. No matter how much anyone says ATM machine, it will always be redundant, and this is the same thing, in my mind. In 95% of the cases I changed, they MEANT to use consist instead of comprise and just didn't realize that they were different. At least one was written "comprising of" which is definitely incorrect. I think we should just stick to either comprises or consists of, since those are indisputably correct ways of writing it. Plus, I've changed all the ones currently on the wiki, so it isn't like this is going to require 500 edits or anything. Jeancey (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2014 (GMT)

I'm not suggesting changing them all back or anything, just saying that it's not considered incorrect anymore. Heck, Oxford even goes a step further than MW and says that the usage is part of standard English. Of course, it does throw most grammar rules out the window to use it like that. Normally, you'd switch the order around when moving from transitive to passive (e.g. "X pages make up this site." vs. "This site is made up of X pages.") Rather awkwardly, "comprise" didn't evolve that way, and it's technically correct to change "This site comprises X pages." to "X pages are comprised of this site." Of course, the latter usage is the complete opposite of how "is comprised of" is normally understood. Languages with no authoritative body are just fun that way. :Þ – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 20:20, 20 September 2014 (GMT)

Its all really just irregardless. :-)--Beezer1029 (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2014 (GMT)

Creativecommons

I need you to add it (creativecommons.org) to the abuse filter's whitelist, I can't add the {{uespimage}} license because its not and the captcha is broken. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 23:09, 11 October 2014 (GMT)

Which filter are you getting hit by? creativecommons.org is already in the abuse filter's whitelist for external links. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 00:17, 12 October 2014 (GMT)

Just the external link captcha (not a filter at that point), which should not be activating if the filter whitelists it. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 00:20, 12 October 2014 (GMT)

Yeah, I see what you mean. It's entirely coming from Asirra. Browsing around on the web, Asirra has closed down, so we'll have to find some other Captcha to use. I don't think Asirra even supports a whitelist of external links anyway. I'll see what I can do. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 00:40, 12 October 2014 (GMT)

Apparently, it does allow a whitelist, so I've added creativecommons.org for now. I'll send Dave a message so he can figure out what we're doing about a Captcha in the long run. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 00:48, 12 October 2014 (GMT)

Elphinia

As with Jorun there was a chance of it being misspelled intentionally, so I anticipated the possibility of a contention to the deletion to be high enough that a speedy deletion was not the correct option for me to take. I'll thank you to not assume that I don't know what I am doing in the future. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 12:25, 18 October 2014 (GMT)

It is easy to check various online databases (including ours) to see if something is in the game or not. Elphinia is present in the game, as are both Jorun and Jorunn. Thus, you don't really need to prod anything, you can simply check to see if it is in the game, and speed the ones that aren't. Jeancey (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2014 (GMT)

The databases are not a good enough way to be certain enough of something to ask for its immediate deletion, you need some experience of the game, especially the sections relevant to what you are editing. Jorun might appear in the database, but it lacks any information on whether it was a deliberate misspelling, an accidental one, or even a separate entity distinct from Jorunn (as does the wiki). Your reversion gives some information on the situation but still leaves the question of whether he is a distinct entity deserving of a page and what part of the mages guild he is involved with seeing as the difference isn't mention anywhere else. Upon noticing the prod on the Elphina page, all you had to do was change it to a speed with a simple message confirming the situation in the summary, you had no need and no right to go into a spiel about following correct procedures aimed at someone who has been requesting article deletions using the correct methods before you even joined this site. Once you start trawling the categories containing over 1000 pages with at least 10% having similar names for duplicate articles, you can return and try to lecture me on which template for deletion is correct (both of which will lead to its deletion in the end). If you had been absent for a few days and the page was incorrectly deleted because I applied a speedy deletion tag, you would have a point on which to criticize, as it is I applied the correct template and you are wrong, no two ways about it. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 23:39, 18 October 2014 (GMT)

If you have no experience in the game, perhaps you shouldn't be proding or speeding things at all? With your edits, I assumed you had access to the game and could actually check things. Perhaps his was an incorrect assumption. Jeancey (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2014 (GMT)

Guys it seems like things are starting to get heated, so maybe both of you should cool down slightly and then come back. Lorenut (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2014 (GMT)

Having experience in the game didn't stop you creating a page under the wrong name, perhaps you should not be creating pages where you have shown a lack of self-checking. Your comments were simply out of order and you should apologise before getting yourself into another handle and start lying again. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 00:55, 19 October 2014 (GMT)

Silencer. This is exactly the type of response that got you in trouble before and the type of response that Lorenut was trying to prevent by asking us to cool down. I am done with this conversation and I suggest you just let it go as well. It isn't all that important and it will only serve to create problems. Jeancey (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2014 (GMT)

You need to hold yourself accountable for your actions, or someone else will have to. The so called trouble before was a completely fabricated situation where multiple admins, yourself included, played a disgraceful part in trying to drive me away from the wiki, simply for having the guts to address situations exactly like this where an senior or prolific editor has made an claim that is simply untrue. Your attempt to silence me again should not go down well your attempt to grab more power permanently, but I fear that many editors will simply ignore your disgraceful actions because they were against me. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 01:03, 19 October 2014 (GMT)

Congratulations!

Congratulations on your successful admin nomination! Welcome to the team! --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 01:48, 24 October 2014 (GMT)

Thanks!! Jeancey (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2014 (GMT)

Welcome (back :P) to the team! – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 03:43, 24 October 2014 (GMT)

Rob's congrats is from both of us, but he forgot to put my name on the card when he was signing it. -damon  ^{talk ♥ contribs} 03:45, 24 October 2014 (GMT)

Congrats on becoming an admin...again! You definitely deserve it. Lorenut (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2014 (GMT)

Congrats! :) Holomay (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2014 (GMT)

Image deletion

Hey Jeancey, I've just noticed these two edits, and since they are related to something that had been on my mind for a while, I'd like to bring it up: Whenever I look at the Unused files page, it feels to me like I've opened the secret messy cupboard in an otherwise sparkling clean apartment. :) There are a lot of images that have been uploaded and then been abandoned. There is a lot of maintenance to do, and unused user page images should be even simpler to deal with than other types of of images. I think users should be responsible for the images they upload, and if our current policy doesn't allow the deletion of unused/abandoned images, maybe something like no. 12 of the Reasons for deletion on Wikipedia should be added? --Holomay (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2014 (GMT)

Jeancey is wrong, unused images (especially user-specific) can be deleted if there is reasonable grounds to believe that image will never be used. We are not a repository for storing images with no use. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 11:04, 25 October 2014 (GMT)

Silencer: Can you show me (And others) where that is stated? I remember seeing something about that somewhere but can't remember where. I would say that before speeding the image, we should ask the user, if they are active. Otherwise, speed works just fine for me. ~ Ad intellige ^(talk) 14:21, 25 October 2014 (GMT)

Well if you knew our policies you would know that lacking our own stated policy on what to do in a situation we default to wikipedia. You could even say the meaning of the maintenance deletion covers them "any pages which no longer serve a purpose on the wiki". Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 15:12, 25 October 2014 (GMT)

"Unused image" is one of the drop-down selections for administrators when deleting an image, so I'm inclined to agree that being unused is sufficient reason to delete something (assuming it's unlikely to be used in the near future). Jeancey and Silencer both have good points, though. Our deletion policy more or less stands on its own, apart from Wikipedia's, and it says nothing direct about deleting unused images other than the general "maintenance" reason of pages that serve no purpose. That only applies to speedy deletions, however. Proposed deletions really don't have any particular rules governing them other than the fact that nobody has objected to the deletion. I think that makes the case for user images, especially: if the user doesn't come back to object to the proposed deletion of an unused image, the image can be deleted. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 18:01, 25 October 2014 (GMT)

I would like to point out that One of the users has an ESO character, and thus may actually come back at some point, and the other only retired a short time ago after being a very active user. I still do not agree with deleting their pictures without contacting them first, which is extremely easy to do. Jeancey (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2014 (GMT)

Don't try to fuddle your way out of another situation, that is not the reason you gave for removing the prod tag. I've already stated my opinion that the deletion policy needs a revamp, and part of the reason I put a prod on them was do that there would be a reasonable time for the user to remove the tag if they were around. With one of the users having stated they are retired and another seeking removal of all their contributions including user and talk page, there is a more than reasonable assumption that they will never return to the wiki. As with most deletions, they can be undone on request anyway. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 16:47, 26 October 2014 (GMT)

(←) I wasn't aware of how active the users were or how likely their return would be. As I said in my opening post, the edits were only an occasion to exchange thoughts on the topic in general. :) Asking the users directly before doing anything with the images is indeed the most courteous and therefore preferable way. The last thing I'd like to do is to make any non-vandal user, no matter how active, feel excluded or discouraged. We don't even need to consider deletion at all. (BTW, putting a prod tag on the image of an inactive user and waiting for them to object to the prod might be a bit like putting the plans for the destruction of earth on display on Alpha Centauri to give earth citizens a chance to file a complaint against it. A talk page entry is probably more likely to reach an inactive user.) If there's no response from the user after a certain period of time, we could simply create a courtesy user subpage for their unused images. --Holomay (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2014 (GMT)

I agree completely with Holomay. It simply isn't okay to delete another users personal images without their consent. Jeancey (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2014 (GMT)

Pity you only just made up that rule, seeing as the entire time you have been active images have been tagged and deleted for this very reason. Why, barely three months ago not one, but two images were deleted without informing the user of the tag. These two were notified afterwards, however, that is clearly not the norm. If you wish to change the way things are currently done, feel free to do so, but do not ever attempt to make up rules on the fly, or apply them retrospectively or I shall give you a warning for gross misconduct. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 13:38, 27 October 2014 (GMT)

If the images have been deleted before, I don't see why we have to start informing the user before deleting them now. By the way, to clarify (as this wasn't clear to me) we are talking about images the user has uploaded that are not being used on the wiki in both of these cases. We aren't going to start deleting users character images off their pages, just images they aren't using. An alert that the image has now been deleted is sufficient, imo. --AN|L (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2014 (GMT)

I see Holomay's point about notification on the image, though I think we're at least in the same solar system when it was, presumably, an image the user themselves uploaded and are more likely to be watching. Still, it certainly wouldn't hurt to notify the user on their talk page before (or at the time of?) prodding an image. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 21:16, 27 October 2014 (GMT)

I’m saddened by the developments related to this discussion. I’ve intended it to be a plain and simple exchange about if and how we should improve our policies regarding a relatively uncommon issue. I had chosen the wording of my opening post to make it clear that I didn’t want to start a discussion about who was right or wrong, but how we can come up with an addition to the policy that is clear enough to avoid confusion, and I didn’t want it to be the trigger for events that eventually led to a block. There are many issues that are not explicitly covered by policies, and from time to time one of them will be brought up. In most cases we’ll probably find inconsistencies in how the issues were dealt with by different editors of even by one editor. Scrutinizing the inconsistencies should serve the purpose of finding a better way to deal with the situation, not of pointing out who was wrong or right. In this case, the most common procedure might have been just to put a prod on an unused user image, and it might have been backed more or less implicitly/explicitly by the policy, but that doesn’t mean we have to continue this practice. Also, a new way to handle things does not necessarily mean to condemn anything that had been done before as bad or wrong. My suggestion for the future is to inform a user per their talk page that one or more of their user images is an unused file. Can we find an agreement on this? And can we find an agreement on 1.) whether at the same time we should put a prod tag on these images, delete them after 7 days if there’s no response and inform the user about the deletion and the possibility to undo the deletion later or 2.) whether we should just wait for 7 days after informing the user and then create a courtesy user subpage for the images? --Holomay (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2014 (GMT)

As I said above, I see no harm in notifying a user. Unlike replacing the contents of a sandbox with a template, deletion is something a user can't undo themselves, so a note on the user's talk page might be the more courteous way to go. I'd be opposed to creating a courtesy subpage, because all that's doing is leading to bloat. I would guess that a large majority of users, once they've left, probably never even think about those images again. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if there are users who are still active who have unused images floating around that they've forgotten about. This procedure would also pretty much match Wikipedia's, where step #1 is to "consider" notifying the user (which, in my experience, pretty much means you should unless the user is banned or there's some other really good reason not to). In step #4, they mention that images that are likely to remain unused should be deleted. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 17:52, 28 October 2014 (GMT)

Belated Congrats!

Man...every time I go on a wiki hiatus, I miss the chance to support nominations of awesome people. Zul se onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 02:28, 28 October 2014 (GMT)

Skyrim:Paarthurnax

No it wasn't fine before. The last sentence of that note was speculative. Speculation isn't something that this wiki benefits from. If that part of the sentence is removed then there will be no problem. DG^#:) 21:27, 22 November 2014 (GMT)

Speculation is fine if it's reasonable. That quote is quite clearly intended to reference Paarthurnax. —Legoless (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2014 (GMT)

I tweaked the wording a bit, just to clarify that it's unconfirmed by anything. I don't remember the context, so if it's truly unnecessary, feel free to remove my addition (but leave the comma I also added earlier in the note). – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 21:35, 22 November 2014 (GMT)

Legoless, can you clarify what you mean? It says on UESPWiki:Style Guide that "speculation or uncertain facts should be avoided", which contradicts with what you are telling me. DG^#:) 21:42, 22 November 2014 (GMT)

Avoided, sure. But those are guidelines, not arbitrary rules, and as far as speculation goes this is pretty minimal stuff. —Legoless (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2014 (GMT)

Avoided doesn't mean banned outright. Jeancey (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2014 (GMT)

I guess you're right... I suppose very minor speculation is allowed very occasionally. DG^#:) 21:53, 22 November 2014 (GMT)

"I believe it is the same as the first bug"

Not exactly. The first bug refers to the animation not playing, while the removed one was referring to the remains (after the animation played out fine) floating above the ground, rather than lying on it properly. - ZuTheSkunk (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2014 (GMT)

Then that isn't a bug. It is designed that way so that it won't fall into the floor and become unlootable as several different bodies did in Morrowind. Jeancey (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2014 (GMT)

Transcluded Page

Hello! I'm afraid I don't really understand what transcluded pages are and thought I should just ask in fear of repeating the same mistake again. I'm also still a bit confused on what sort of things should be posted on the forum instead and not the talk pages. Thank you. Enodia (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2014 (GMT)

Transclusion is when you insert part of another document into the current one. Templates are complex examples of transclusion, but on our wiki, there are a lot of other transclusions from Lore space as well. Those are the ones that look like {{Lore:Realm of Boethia}}, to use the page you were looking at, which copies the entire page Lore:Realm of Boethia into the current page (give or take certain exceptions). I'll let Jeancey answer the rest of your question, because I didn't look closely at what you were doing and I have to go for dinner now. :) – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 00:22, 9 December 2014 (GMT)

I honestly think that the forum part is the easiest bit of this question to explain. Anything can be posted on the forums, but only gameplay mechanic or editing specific questions should be posted on a talk page. For example, if you had a suggestion about an addition to a page but you weren't sure if it really belonged, that's a perfect talk page question. However if you wanted to ask why people thought some werewolves can live perfectly fine among society and others can't seem to control themselves, that's a forum question. We generally don't deal in the why of lore or the reasons why the designers did things one way or another. If you have a specific topic that you are unsure about, feel free to ask me here on my talk page and I can let you know if it is something better suited for the forums :) Jeancey (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2014 (GMT)

Goal for this quarter!

We are SO close to our goal for the quarter! Especially on the "750 NPC Spells written" part. If I keep going we could get over 750 before Monday! – Dragon Guard  ^(talk) 12:53, 4 January 2015 (GMT)

OK, never mind. We're doing well anyways. – Dragon Guard  ^(talk) 17:51, 6 January 2015 (GMT)

Dialogue question

Where shall I put the crime dialogue for guards? Was there a specific article you had in mind? – Dragon Guard  ^(talk) 17:53, 6 January 2015 (GMT)

Re: Advice

Hi there, thanks for letting me know, but I do think some of them might not be so easily obvious such as the Soul Gems addition. Not many are familiar with that type of specialised crystal. Isn't not adding information because you assume others naturally know detrimental to the wiki? All of the inferences I made I have backed up with references to real-world information, and many of the things I added even I didn't know until someone pointed them out to me. I honestly feel that the reverted edits are taking valuable information away from articles. Bluesonic1 (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2015 (GMT)

We just don't add real-world inspirations to articles, mainly because it is speculation and original research. There are also SO many sources in the game that it would be unreasonable to add them all. Regardless of whether this is the proper way of doing things, or the feasibility of adding them all, changing site-wide policy would require a discussion on the community portal and a consensus to implement. I didn't dispute any of the connections you made, and they were actually much more thought out than people who typically post real-world connections, but it just doesn't follow our policy. I do feel that you could be a valuable editor to the wiki, given how well you referenced your notes. Jeancey (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2015 (GMT)

I thought you said you don't add these types of edits in "mainly because anything that is clear enough to not be speculation is clear enough that it doesn't need to be stated". Your reasons just don't add up and I'm extremely disheartened to see a wiki turn down referenced information, especially information that you say you don't dispute. I'm sorry, but I just can't edit on a wiki that's going to be trailing behind my every edit and reverting them. Bluesonic1 (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2015 (GMT)

What I meant was that edits that weren't speculation are so clear that you don't need to add it. Like Iron being a real world metal, it doesn't need a note linking to the Iron wikipedia article. I was attempting to explain the reasons behind the policy rather than simply stating that it was against policy. You'll notice that several other of your edits weren't reverted, simply the ones that added the real-world references. I really don't want to dissuade you from editing, but policy is policy. Jeancey (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2015 (GMT)

Perhaps you should re-consider the policy on this then- it's not clearly obvious that Soul Gems look extremely alike to Aura Quartz, and many people don't know what Aura Quartz is. Others don't know what a Roman Gladius sword is or that they had specific swords different to other countries like the European Longsword. Some people don't even know what dragon fruit is (I didn't until someone I knew pointed out that it looked like a Briar Heart- and I thought that was really neat and worth sharing with others). Perhaps the Chitin one is a bit obvious but there are hundreds of different chiton species out there; being a biologist I found the one that resembled the Chitin Plate most closely. That's not something the average person just knows, like Skyrim iron is iron in the real-world. This is genuine information that the wiki is missing out on. Bluesonic1 (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2015 (GMT)

In response to that last line, this isn't wikipedia. This is a site for Elder Scrolls information about the Elder Scrolls universe. Therefore these real-world connections are basically pointless. Also expanding on what Jeancey said earlier, we can't just find some real-world object and claim that it inspired an object in TES. Could there be some real-world influences? Probably, but like easter eggs, unless there is some definitive connection, it's speculation/original research which we just cannot have on our articles. On another note, I'm curious: Why do you feel this information needs to be on the articles here? I just want to see your point of view. •WoahBro^►talk 14:44, 21 January 2015 (GMT)

Because this is Elder Scrolls information. I thought places like these (wikis?) were made to house information, to teach readers new things and provide them with all the information they can get on a particular topic. I never claimed that any of those points were definitively where they got their inspiration from- I was very careful not to, considering no one can claim that except Bethesda themselves. But some of us would like to explore where they might have gotten their ideas from, in order to understand the object or character better. If the Dwemer Sword is indeed based on the Gladius Roman Sword, this gives insight into their battling style. While it's not definitive, it's potential concept work that can inspire ideas in others or make them think about things in different ways. Aura Quartz is quartz crystal that has been artificially treated to look like it does- perhaps Soul Gems are alike in this manner in that they require special preparations done by man in order to be able to house a Soul, which results in their unique look. This kind of idea is supported by the fact that experiments on altering Soul Gems are very common in the Arcane Arts, so it's a possibility. Speculation is not incorrect information as you might claim it to be- it is neither correct, nor incorrect. Until Bethesda comes here themselves, and says the information is incorrect, it cannot be called incorrect. And as such, has the potential to be true. I value this potential, that's why I feel it should be allowed on articles. Bluesonic1 (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2015 (GMT)

Speculation may not be incorrect, but it goes against our style guide. Unless you can get confirmation from Bethesda's artists, the 'potential inspirations' for item models aren't notable. —Legoless (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2015 (GMT)

Kust Note

Hey Jeancy. I've been using this site for years, but I'm a newbie to the contribution stuff. My main deal was about the note from kust and why it was removed. What happened was I stole something from Lod the falkreath blacksmith, and he sent a hit squad out to rough me up. Well, I killed 'ol Lod later on for revenge. Afterwards, I got a letter from Kust thanking me and promising not to tell. I couldn't find a reference to it on uesp, other than Lod and Kust was supposed to have a quest that never made it in the game. Apparently, that letter was part of that unfinished quest. My question is how to add it? Do I need to create an entry in the notes section, then link it back to the kust page? Thanks in advance for your help.— Unsigned comment by Yowboy (talk • contribs) at 01:12 on 25 January 2015

The reason it was removed is because that event can occur with any two NPCs in the game that are considered rivals. The quest that governs this is An enemy's gratitude, and the quest about the theft one is Steal, Thugs hunt player. Hope I helped you understand! ~ Ad intellige ^(talk) 06:24, 25 January 2015 (GMT)

I followed the link and saw what you were talking about. Lol...I thought I had found something new. Thanks for the quick reply, and clearing things up for me. — Unsigned comment by Yowboy (talk • contribs) at 01:39 on 25 January 2015

Dominus: On a side note, the text being ignored after a comma is intended for things like "[[Phoneix, Arizona]]" which would just produce "Phoenix". If you're curious, you can see all the permutations at Wikipedia:Help:Pipe trick. While only commas and parentheses are affected, it will only affect one or the other, just to confuse everyone. ;) – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 16:24, 25 January 2015 (GMT)

100% pointless edit

Was it pointless because it didn't really add anything to the cleanup tag for the image, and wasn't part of an article, which actually NEEDS full stops?— Unsigned comment by Dragon Guard (talk • contribs) at 11:09 on 26 January 2015

Both. And if I'm reading your response correctly, even if a cleanup tag were placed on a page, even that doesn't need to have a full stop. Sure, it's correct grammar, but that only really matters on the articles themselves, not cleanup tags. •WoahBro^►talk 15:02, 26 January 2015 (GMT)

Sure, no problem. I understand. – Dragon Guard  ^(talk) 16:45, 26 January 2015 (GMT)

"Malet" gender ;)

Hey Jeancey! Thanks for catching it! I am on my husband's laptop and that keyboard (with the mind of its own) drives me crazy :( :) ~ Shuryard (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2015 (GMT)

No worries! We all make typos (I should know, I make a ton of them!) Jeancey (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2015 (GMT)

Abuse log

Hey Jeancey! I was trying to revert vandalism when I got this. If I understand it correctly, it happened because the Oblivion:Ini Settings page contains a lot of external links... I am wondering if it affects my account/record somehow? :) Thanks! ~ Shuryard (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2015 (GMT)

No, it won't affect your account. The abuse filter isn't infallible, so this happens every once in a while. --Rook (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2015 (GMT)

Makes sense... Thanks! ~ Shuryard (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2015 (GMT)

Item Link

The item here is showing up as unknown for me. Might be the wrong quality or something? —Legoless (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2015 (GMT)

Whenever that happens I try different qualities. If I still can't make it work, I assume that there is something wrong with the link itself (it happens occasionally). In this case, it is more likely that no one with the addon has completed the quest. I double checked the item ID, and I'm fairly sure of the quality. There are just a couple that don't seem to work and I'm not 100% sure why. I do know that it doesn't work with trophies, for instance. Jeancey (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2015 (GMT)

Very weird. I had a feeling I had the add-on enabled when I did that quest... —Legoless (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2015 (GMT)

Same, but sometimes it's in the database, but just won't work for some reason. I'll eventually figure out what the issue is... Jeancey (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2015 (GMT)

By the way, the Battered Bear Trap reward also shows as unknown. —MortenOSlash (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2015 (GMT)

That's because it doesn't work with trophies. No idea why. Jeancey (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2015 (GMT)

Fixed both; the ItemID for the first one was wrong, and Trophies are all Level 1. --Enodoc (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2015 (GMT)

(←) What about the level of Collectibles? I'd like to prod ON-item-Fleshy Symbiont.jpg (lvl 22) and ON-item-Lashing Tentacle.jpg (lvl 32). The images are unused and I don't think we need them anymore now that we can use the Item Link template. I am just not sure which parameters to use for the links - do the levels of Collectibles vary? --Holomay (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2015 (GMT)

I used level 1 for the fish (which are marked as collectibles). Try using 22 and 32 for those two, and if they don't work, try level 1. Jeancey (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2015 (GMT)

Done. :) Holomay (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2015 (GMT)

Sic

Would you mind weighing in on this? Thanks! —Legoless (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2015 (GMT)

Trials of St. Alessia

Hey. That book already exists:

• Online:Trials of St. Alessia
• Online:Trials of Saint Alessia

--Jimeee (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2015 (GMT)

Bah! I searched like 3 times for the actual text of the book and couldn't find anything but talk pages... Thanks. It seems the name changed in-game however, as did some of the text. Jeancey (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2015 (GMT)

If the changes are significant. it might be enough to warrant this approach again. —Legoless (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2015 (GMT)

Naw, I just went over it. It's just minor things, like single quotes to double quotes and double hyphens to mdashes. Jeancey (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2015 (GMT)

Datamining and Lore

Am I right in thinking there is a policy regarding pre-release material in lorespace? I wanted to check before contacting IceFireWarden directly so that I didn't tell them anything incorrect, but this is in relation to the books "The Blackwater War", "Murky Time" and "Teeba-Hatsei‎". If they have been datamined from Murkmire content, then that information is not currently in-game, and would need to be considered under any pre-release policies if such exist. Thanks! --Enodoc (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2015 (GMT)

You can see the pre-release guidelines here. Usually it should be limited to "seen in" sections, i.e. it's fine to link to Online:Wrothgar from Lore:Wrothgar, but talking about the lack of Covenant loyalty in the region isn't usually allowed. As far as those books are concerned, it might be best to simply confine them to the Online namespace for now and slap a {{Pre-Release}} tag on them. —Legoless (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2015 (GMT)

I think slapping on a pre-release tag would be appropriate until the books are verified in-game, but personally, I think we need every edge we can get to keep things updated. I think it's a good rule to follow for the single-player games, but I think this rule unduly hampers editor productivity in the context of ESO content.

Anyway, we've had data-mined cut Skyrim content in the lorespace for years, but no one seems to care. Insignificant Revisions^{Threats•Evidence} 17:18, 28 March 2015 (GMT)

In fairness, that Ragnvald book probably shouldn't be there. —Legoless (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2015 (GMT)

It's like you guys don't even need me for the conversation :P Jeancey (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2015 (GMT)