User talk:Obliv4PS3

feel free to leave a message about my contributions or talk statements.

Dark Brotherhood Factions

Hiya. I noticed that you've added factions 'Black Hand' to both Ungolim and Lucien Lachance. I reverted them both because, well, there is no Black Hand faction. Not a usable one at least. The Black Hand faction appears to be a flag used by the quest 'A Dark Exile' The factions available to Dark Brotherhood NPCs include 'Dark Brotherhood', 'DarkBrotherhood Elite' and 'Dark Brotherhood -- Won't Call Guards'. The (so called) Black Hand that Ungolim, Lachance, J'gasta and their ilk belong to referred to in game terms only. The factions described in their entries in UESP, are factions the NPCs belong to in the game engine. These factions stop members from attacking other particular NPCs, or reacting in particular ways when a script is run. Hope this clarifies things a little. --Saruuk 22:22, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

• I have added the Black hand faction in the best interest to the user of the wiki for information and by the information in articles in question I have added black hand in several others as well

Yes, I have noticed. And it is not correct. One example is Alval Uvani, who does not even belong to the Dark Brotherhood. He is a member of each city faction, as well as the 'hate the player' faction. Furthermore, the description of each of these NPCs already states that they are Black Hand members. Therefore, adding Black Hand to the factions, is not only incorrect, but unnecessary. --Saruuk 22:29, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

• First of all he is infact a member of the Dark Brotherhood it is said so in the game and further more a member of the black hand.

Ok, you win; I'm not doing this anymore. You know what they say about arguing on the Internet. --Saruuk 22:35, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

I'd like to point out (which should be obvious to Obliv4PS3 already) that the comments I just made yesterday at Oblivion talk:The Gray Fox and Oblivion Talk:A Stranger apply here, too. The factions that have been put in the user boxes are the construction set information that governs how the NPCs behave. Changing that information means that the information on the pages is false. If there is a disagreement about the factions, then that information should be in the faction notes. But I really don't think that the construction set facts should just be overwritten because those facts are the ones that actually control what happens in the game. --Nephele^Talk 22:44, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

As what is well known I had added the Black Hand as a sub faction. I do believe this to be different in ways to the gray fox Anvil citizen issue. The majority of players do not ever even look at the construction set nor does it concern them. When people come to the Wiki I believe they have information in regards to how it effects the game play rather than what the scripting says and I believe the Bethesda also had this in mind for any Guide sites such as the UESP. I would like to discuss this further with you in order to fully understand your viewing of this as well.--Most Honored Listener 22:51, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the construction set information critically concerns every single player of the game, because that is the data makes the game work. Everything that happens in the game is dictated by the construction set and the construction set alone. Whether or not all players can examine it, it still affects every single event that happens while they are playing. And I'm quite sure the Bethesda developers would agree that the construction set information is what controls the game, given that they're the ones who wrote all of the information that is available in the construction set. Almost all of the information on this site has been collected from the construction set precisely because it provides the most accurate information on how the game works. I don't see why the only place on the site where the construction set information is ignored should be the Dark Brotherhood factions.

I've tried to edit Ungolim's page to come up with a version of the page that provides all the relevant information. Is there any chance that you could live with a page like that? Could a similar format be adopted for the other Dark Brotherhood NPCs? --Nephele^Talk 23:03, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

It looks cumbersome, unwieldy and unnecessary. Why is there a need to draw attention to discrepancies between game lore and the construction set data? Wouldn't it be fair to assume that people will be content with simply having the game lore (description) in one place, and the CS data (faction box) in another? --Saruuk 23:11, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

I agree its cumbersome, especially if it's going to be added to every NPC associated with the Dark Brotherhood. But given that this issue has come repeatedly in the last month, prompted by several different editors, it seems to me that the only way to prevent constant edit wars over the pages is to spell it out in exacting detail. Even if among the three of us we could come up with an agreement on what information belongs in the info box (which by itself seems very unlikely), next week another editor would come along with no knowledge of what had been decided, and he'd go through and change all the pages again. Then we'd be back to square one. I'd rather find a way right now to just fix it for once and for all, that prevents any reader looking at the page from possibly being confused. --Nephele^Talk 23:20, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

It wouldn't be every memeber just those of the Black hand which are the only ones I had edited because after you finish the dead drop quests you then become a member of the Black hand where every member gets a new uniform whilist the lesser members get a different uniform. What confuses me is that before I did this there was other information in the dark brotherhood factions box that only effected game "lore" additionally if the information that it is purely CS info that should be noted to not confuse other people like myself.--Most Honored Listener 23:28, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

What information specifically are referring to when you say that before 'there was other information in the dark brotherhood factions box that only effected game "lore"'? And does what I've done on Oblivion:Ungolim address your concerns about noting that the information comes from the construction set? --Nephele^Talk 23:46, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

first I do believe the " Does not call guards sub topic" is one of these examples and if the character info is going to be pure CS content based that should be presented at the top of the box.--Most Honored Listener 23:57, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

And yes it does Nephele but I am wondering when it says editor ID DarkbrotherhoodNoguard what exactly is this meaning?--Most Honored Listener 00:05, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

The exact name of Ungolim's faction in the construction set is "Dark Brotherhood -- Won't Call Guards". Most items in the construction have three identifiers. One is a unique numeric identifier (in this case 00064F47), one is a unique text identifier (DarkBrotherhoodNoGuard), and the third is the descriptive name ("Dark Brotherhood -- Won't Call Guards"). Generally the descriptive name is what is displayed in game (if the item's name is ever displayed in game). So the original text in the faction box was not based on lore, but derived directly from the faction's construction set name. It might be an odd looking name for a faction, but that's what the facts are.

As for stating at the top of the box that the information is derived from the CS, I don't see why the NPC pages should be singled out like that. If you wanted that information stated, it would need to go on the top of every single page on the game. All the information on Oblivion:Undead, Oblivion:Goblins, Oblivion:Weapons, Oblivion:Unique Items, Oblivion:Notes, Oblivion:Culotte, Oblivion:Anga, etc.: it is all taken from the construction set. In other cases where there is a discrepancy between what you might expect and the actual data, it is just noted at the appropriate place. There haven't been requests on other pages to put up warnings that the information came from the construction set.

To try to clarify once more with the construction set. Every version of the game, on the PC, Xbox, and PS3, relies on a file called "Oblivion.esm". That is the master data file that contains virtually all of the information (other than graphics and audio) that make up the game. It is a huge file and dictates every aspect of game play. That Oblivion.esm file is identical on all platforms. The construction set is basically just a tool that allows PC players to read the Oblivion.esm file. When we say the information came from the construction set, really what we mean is the information came from Oblivion's master data file, but we read it using the construction set. So even though you may be on the PS3 and have absolutely no access to the construction set, the information gathered from it describes what happens on your game just as accurately as it describes what happens to an Xbox player or a PC player.

So to put a banner stating that the information on the site came from the construction set would be equivalent to putting a banner up saying that the information came from the game. And hopefully our readers would expect that the information being provided here is based upon the facts of the game, and not need to be given redundant reminders. --Nephele^Talk 00:24, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

---I am fully with you that people don't need any redundancy in the wiki but maybe a simple note on the "How to Contribute page" or even just the Oblivion Page I don't know whether--Most Honored Listener 00:57, 7 July 2007 (EDT) all the games have a CS or if its just Oblivion but I hope you wouldn't mind a small note on one of these pages?

I'm not sure that a note on the "How to Contribute" is necessary. Or rather, if we put one on about this, we'd end up putting them on for everything. The problem seems to be that edits were being made when the editor wasn't in possession of all the facts. There have been similar problems before on leveled loot, skill books and so on. As a personal policy, I don't change anything I'm not 100% sure about. If I find something that seems to be at odds with the site, I will usually ask a question on the article's discussion page and only make the change if there's agreement or if there's no reply. Yes it is said "Be bold in your edits", but is it also not said that "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread"? :-) --Rpeh^Talk 10:13, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

I think this should be left to Daveh this is too much of a quarrel and frankly Oblivion:Ungolim is ugly due to the thing in the notes section, Factions are Factions, Lore is Lore, and if a person needs to know what a faction is, they can search it, but damaging the presentability of a page is unnecessary. Puddle 4:24 13 April 2008 (GMT)

Let's not start this again... This was settled months ago. Yes, the page is a bit ugly with that note but the alternative is to have people changing every few weeks. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 03:55, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Zero Weight Category

Okay, clearly we disagree on the status of this project. I personally checked every page listing Oblivion items, and every one of those items (except of course keys, scrolls, and notes, which were not added invididually because it simply is not reasonable) has been added to the category. If you could please provide specific weightless items that are not keys, scrolls, or notes, I would be happy to add them to the category. Otherwise, the task is finished. --Eshe 18:40, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

The Vast majority of scrolls are all .1 wight why not include the one(s) that are 0 weight like Summon Rufio's Ghost?

and also there are some items on the list that are quest items and Quest Items should not be included or Obvious reasons.

As I stated before, because the category is called "Zero Weight Items" and not "Zero Weight Items That Aren't Quest Items," all weightless items have been included in the category. I don't see the point of removing quest items from the category, as it is meant simply to list all items whose weight is zero.

If you would like to compose a list of exactly which scrolls are weightless, I would be happy to add them, so long as the list is of reasonable length. Otherwise, I see no problem with leaving the category as it is. --Eshe 19:38, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Obliv4PS3, it seems to me that if you have such specific ideas about what needs to be done to improve the category, it would make more sense for you to just make those modifications yourself. It would definitely be easier than going through all this effort to explain to someone else what you want done.

In any case, I don't really think the task needs to remain on the Task List page. The vast majority of the work has been done, so it's no longer really a "project" that needs to be worked on. There are thousands of pages that can be tweaked in various ways on the site, and those tweaks don't all get listed on the Task List. --Nephele^Talk 20:37, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

I would but I am not 100% sure on how to do so with items that do not have their own page yet belong to a combined page such as ingredients--Most Honored Listener 21:34, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I HIGHLY agree with Nephele. It's a done project. Taken care of, kaput. There are alot of grammar errors, spelling, fals info, and vandals that we can take care of. Which was once a project, is now a finished project, already presented. --Playjex 21:39, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

See UESPWiki talk:Task List#Zero Weight Items --Nephele^Talk 21:45, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

I agree that it is "done" for the most part and should be taken off just I wanted to either learn how to edit the category pages or have it done by someone who already knows but I am pretty busy with the forums and it would be nice if someone could add the two things I put on the Category's discussion page.--Most Honored Listener 22:05, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

You only mentioned one item, the scroll Summon Rufio's Ghost. If this scroll is to be added, the other weightless scrolls should be added as well. I'll say for the hundredth time that I feel the note on the category page is sufficient. However, if you must have it done your way, I leave it up to you to do it. Good luck. --Eshe 22:12, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

I didn't know that there were any other weightless scrolls other than that at least I haven't seen any in game, but aside from that this is very low priority. Focusing on the things currently on the task list seem like they should all be done first.--Most Honored Listener 13:23, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Jeelius

What exactly is redundant about the Jeelius article? Nothing has been repeated. The only thing I could find, if you really wish to be pedantic, it the word 'involuntary' and that's really a no issue. Repeating an adjective twice in 2 sentences isn't really something that should beget repeated editing. --Saruuk 18:35, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

As a writer, I understand the desire to make sure words aren't repeated too often. Hopefully my revision of the article is acceptable enough to solve this issue. --Eshe 18:38, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

I just am trying to better things in the wiki even if it is on a level such as this anything works and I really don't see why it shouldn't be done. and yes having it say Involuntarily visiting two times in a row just is kind of sadly uncreative--Most Honored Listener 18:57, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

I had something odd happen with him. The statue fell on him but he still had a sliver of health. Also thank you Listener--TheBoogeyman209 16:52, July 20, 2007

Consecutive Edits

It would be really great if you could make use of the "show preview" feature instead of making a long string of edits to a single page. That way, you can see the changes you've made without saving the page and it makes it much easier for other editors to keep track of what's happening on a particular page. Also, instead of editing a page section by section, you can simply click the "edit" tab at the top of the page or change your preferences to allow you to edit an entire page by double-clicking on it. Thanks, Eshe 23:00, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I do use the Show preview feature and found it allot easier to see what I am doing when I am dealing on the smaller scale of the alphabetical section rather than showing the whole page but if its an issue I can switch to doing the whole page and editing it as one page rather than the sections.--Most Honored Listener 23:04, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I now see that this can be a nuisance to Patrolers because of the Patrolled icon showing up after every single edit.--Most Honored Listener 00:05, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Yep, you got it ;). It's not a huge deal, really, but it is very helpful if long strings of edits can be avoided. --Eshe 00:24, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Understood :D

Article Tags

I've spotted the tags you've been adding recently ({{cleanup}}, {{stub}} and so on) and while you're probably right that things need doing, it would help others if you could add a brief note to the article's talk page unless the action is absolutely blatant. For instance, both Eshe and I are unsure what needs cleaning up here. Also, you may not be aware but there are a few tags more specific than {{stub}}, for instance {{stub-ob}}, {{stub-si}} and {{stub-tam}} for Oblivion-, Shivering Isles- and Tamriel-related articles respectively. It just makes things easier to find on pages like this. --Rpeh^Talk 05:27, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Some Friendly Suggestions

It's clear to me that you are very committed to helping improve the wiki. We all welcome your willingness to put time and effort into the site, not to mention all of the work you've been doing on the forums. I sincerely hope that you continue contributing and making suggestions about how UESP could be improved. But I felt that perhaps some feedback and suggestions might be helpful in order to allow everyone to enjoy working on UESP as much as possible.

I'm sure you have also noticed that your comments and edits seems to frequently initiate prolonged discussions. Also, those discussions often end up doing little or nothing to improve wiki articles, despite the fact that the wiki is not a forum, i.e., the primary purpose of the wiki is not to carry on discussions. The primary purpose of the wiki is to write articles and the discussions are meant to help decide how to improve the articles. So it's a bit worrisome when multiple editors are putting a lot of their effort into discussions that seem to accomplish little except to increase everyone's frustration.

In particular, the exchange over the last day at Oblivion Talk:M'aiq the Liar prompted me to write these comments. I was actually somewhat stunned by your edit summary: "sigh" another reply. Believe me, everyone else in the discussion probably feels the same way, if not even more strongly. You were the one who initiated the discussion, in particular with your edit on July 14th where you asked a question. Therefore, you have expressed an interest in the topic. Nobody else who is contributing to the discussion has any reason to be interested in M'aiq the Liar, so if you're not enjoying the discussion, you can safely guess that everybody else is enjoying it even less. In rpeh's last post he stated it was his "final word", which to me suggests my impressions of everyone's reactions aren't too far off. So it left me wondering why these discussions get started and then why they keep dragging on if nobody feels that they are benefiting from the discussion. Looking through the details of this and other discussions led to a few ideas about what seems to have happened and, more importantly, what could perhaps be done differently in the future.

First, realize that if you ask a question, other editors are going to take that as a request on your part for information, and therefore any question is likely to start (or continue) a discussion. If you respond to someone's answer with another question, you should expect to get another answer. So it definitely seems strange to other editors when you then express dissatisfaction with getting an answer and turn around and ask yet again. If you would like to finish the discussion, you can choose to not provide any follow up to the answer. Nobody will think it's rude; we'll just assume that you got the information you were looking for and the case is closed. Or if you would like to make a response, you can make a statement without asking any more questions. We keep answering and continuing the discussion because you keep asking more questions. If you'd like the discussion to stop, do not ask another question. If you do choose to ask a question, make sure first that you actually are interested in the answer and that you will appreciate any information you are given (whether or not it agrees with your expectations).

Second, try to take into account that other editors will invest a lot of time and effort into answering a question on your behalf. When you ask a question, you are essentially asking a favour of the other editors. You are asking the person who responds to drop whatever else they would prefer to be working on and instead spend time working on your project. Everybody who contributes to the site is doing so purely voluntarily. Nobody is getting paid or in any way rewarded for the effort they put into answering your questions. It can take an hour, sometimes more, to research the answer to a question; then there's also the time that it takes to compose and proof-read an accurate and meaningful response. So you're asking a pretty big favour when you ask a question, and you shouldn't take it lightly.

Third, keeping focussed on the wiki article will probably help to keep the discussions productive. So when you ask a question or initiate a discussion try to focus on how the wiki article needs to be improved. What information specifically is incorrect or missing? For example, at Imperial Jailor you posted:

In some cases the Jailors are not a required part of quests such as in Ahdarji's Heirloom.

In this case, what were you trying to point out in the article that was incorrect? The article says that Ahdarji's Heirloom is a quest related to the Imperial Jailors. The article does not say that jailors are a required part of the quest. So what exactly needs to be changed in the article? Try reading the articles carefully to be sure that you have understood them correctly, figure out what specifically you believe to be incorrect in the article, and then double check whether or not it is possible that the statement could be true. Taking that bit of extra time before posting a question could possibly save everyone a lot of work.

Fourth, it would really help if you could put more effort into doing research yourself before asking a question. For example, with your most recent post about M'aiq the Liar you could do the research into the facts as easily as any other editor. You could have looked over the discussion to review who said what and when. If you'd done that, instead of stating that "for some reason there is recent discussion about this", you would have been able to figure out what the reason was: you asked a question. The rest of the discussion was clearly a response to your question. In addition, you could have pulled up the article's history to see exactly what the article said in June. That would have shown you that your edit removed the text "or searching for calipers (thus, you may make him appear by dropping a pile of calipers)." So, the article never said that you could "summon" M'aiq. And with your deletion, the article now makes absolutely no reference to summoning, making M'aiq appear, or otherwise influencing his behaviour. By doing that type of research yourself, you could have found out that the information you were about to post was incorrect and saved yourself the trouble of making the post. Or you could have made a different contribution to the discussion that everyone would have found more helpful and informative because it was based upon as many facts as possible.

Another example is your post this morning at Oblivion_Talk:Imperial Jailor:

I am not sure but I think that the Imperial Jailor is a different NPC than the City Jailors. For instance the city jailors I believe are called "(city name) Jailor" not "Imperial jailor". Does this make them separate NPCs?

Before asking other editors to take time to look into this question, you could have first spent some time yourself figuring out most of the information. You could have gone to the prison in each city in the game and determined each jailor's name. You could have looked to see whether there were any significant differences between the various jailors. Or, more to the point given that improving the wiki article is the objective, you could have checked to see whether there was any information in the article that did not apply to one of the jailors, or whether there were additional details of interest regarding a jailor that were missing from the article. In other words, find out for yourself whether there are problems with the existing article and whether you can come up with any specific reasons why separate articles are needed for the NPCs.

From my point of view, I know that I am much more motivated to help someone with a question when it is clear to me that the editor has really made an effort to figure things out themselves before asking the question. Just for comparison, Robin Hood recently made edits to the Nirnroot and Seeking Your Roots articles [1], [2]. He then followed up with a post at Oblivion_Talk:Nirnroot#Stealing, which made it clear that he had spent time checking the facts as thoroughly as he could in game. He realized that his conclusion was different from what had been stated in the articles, and therefore provided details on why he thought the edits had been necessary. The details made it easy for other editors to double check his conclusions. That type of explanation isn't necessary for every edit, but it is very helpful whenever there is any possibility of a disagreement about an edit. Keep in mind that whatever currently is stated in an article has implicitly been approved by the community. Therefore if you think there is a mistake, the burden of proof is on you to prove to everyone else that there is a mistake. The more time and effort you put into collecting evidence and describing it, the easier it is for other editors to accept what you are saying.

Again, I'm only saying all of this in the hopes of providing some constructive criticism so that future discussions can be more enjoyable and productive for everyone concerned. I definitely do not mean to discourage you from continuing to participate in or contribute to the wiki. It just seems that there are a few patterns that have been repeated multiple times, and I wanted to share some perspectives on those patterns. I really hope that you find some of these ideas useful and that they help you with continuing to learn about the wiki and become an exceptional wiki editor :) --Nephele^Talk 18:49, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

I thank you for bringing these up for it is always better to point something out in a friendly way before it gets to serious.

additionally I would like to say that in most of my discussion statements I try to stay neutral as I can because I can often get to sure of myself being correct. I will make sure to double check anything that I am not 100% percent sure about before making any edits or discussion topics and honestly I think there needs to be a separate forums thread just for expanding of these discussions . I realize that this is what the forums are for but a community of casual gamers that have found that the Official forums are not at all user friendly come here discussion things about the game instead about the wiki.--Most Honored Listener 19:32, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

I just want to add one small thing - it's not always the best solution to "fix" red-links by removing them. Red links are not an error that needs to be fixed. Rather, they are a sign that a page might need to be created in that location. Twice now, you've removed a red-link to Morrowind:Blades Trainers, which is a page I'm working on. I'm aware it doesn't exist yet, but I had plans to put it up as soon as the correct pages were all linked to it, and removing the links is counter-productive. It is perfectly acceptable to leave red-links on a page and just assume that whoever put them there has plans for them. Thanks. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 20:05, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Actually that was the first time and it looked like the type of link that was a broken one. I apologize that it wasn't.--Most Honored Listener 23:43, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

YAY! I'm back! Okay, Nephele, that was well said, and prompted me to be on your side if you will. Oh yeah and "Most Honored Listener" don't get mad about your own mistakes please, okay? --Playjex 20:00, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Stubs

Hey there, just wanted to remind you to keep in mind that not all short articles are stubs. In a lot of cases, there's just nothing more to be said on a particlar page. Short, complete articles are much nicer than wordy, redundant ones ;). --Eshe 21:45, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

I realize that but there is always allot more info that could be added.--Most Honored Listener 21:46, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

I firmly disagree. There's a finite amount of information available about the Elder Scrolls games, which means that there's a finite amount of information about each individual detail in each of those games. If an article contains all relevent information about a topic without being redundant, it is not a stub, no matter how short it is.

I know it can be difficult to discern whether or not a page is complete; I just wanted to encourage you to take more time to investigate before tossing a stub tag on an article. When in doubt, check the edit history--if the page has been the same for a long time, it's probably safe to assume that it's not a stub. --Eshe 21:56, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

I have come across empty pages for NPCs with no edit history this page is obviously a stub. just FYI--Most Honored Listener 21:59, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm quite aware, as I stated above, that incomplete pages are stubs. I'll reiterate that I just wanted to let you know that not all short articles are stubs and it would be much appreciated if you would take more time to make sure an article needs to be expanded before marking it with a stub tag. --Eshe 22:03, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Dialogue vs Dialog

Could you please just drop this pointless argument? "Dialogue" and "dialog" are officially accepted ways to spell this word in English, in both American and British usage. Therefore there is absolutely no reason to go through the site and replace the hundreds of instances where "dialogue" has been used. And there's definitely no reason to force me to waste my time explaining how to use the English language. --Nephele^Talk 14:55, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Most Honored Listener username

In case you were wondering, I just wanted to explain some edits I just made and my decision to block the wiki account "Most Honored Listener". A new user started the account "Most Honored Listener" on the wiki last weekend. Although you've signed posts with that name on the wiki, you had never created a wiki account using that name, thus making it possible for someone else to create the account. But I thought that having two editors both identifying themselves as MHL on the site would be just a bit confusing ;) So I asked the new editor to set up an account with a different name; all of the edits made by the new editor as MHL have now been reassigned to the new account. I then blocked the account to prevent any future problems and made it redirect to your name so that anyone looking for you will be able to find you more easily. If you have any questions about all that, feel free to ask! --Nephele^Talk 18:57, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

Forums Moderator

I just noticed that your talk page says you're still a Moderator of the forums; to avoid confusing new members, I changed it. I hope you don't mind. --Vargon 17:46, 17 February 2009 (EST)