User talk:Ukraine007

Abanji & Co

Hey Ukraine007!

What exactly is it you are trying to do with Abanji? -- SarthesArai ^Talk 14:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Kannst du diesen Artikel zu machen? ))--Ukraine007 (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

As there is a huge number of NPCs in Morrowind that are named but don't have any other unique features, and creating a single page for each of these would be a really time-consuming task with little gain, it was decided to display these Non-Relevant NPCs on the respective place pages only. So unless Abanji meats any of these criteria, we don't need a page for her. -- SarthesArai ^Talk 15:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, there's no need to document every NPC's stats, like you did with Abelle Chriditte. 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
• Uploading Images: Guidelines on image standardization

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. 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 on the forums.

-- SarthesArai ^Talk 15:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Additionally, there's no need to document every NPC's stats, like you did with Abelle Chriditte."

It is not right! That's what the players want to know! Players want to know that at least for some of the characters. (( --Ukraine007 (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see why it couldn't be on pages. They have NPC health and that in infoboxes, some more stats wouldn't hurt. DRAGON GUARD^(TALK) 18:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

(←) Just because information isn't listed, doesn't necessarily mean it should be. If anyone here feels strongly about the issue, we can discuss it on the Community Portal. Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 19:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Privilege

"If Archcanon of the Temple interact with an Ordinator while wearing either an Indoril Helmet or Cuirass, they are not to attack."

Interact? Like if you speak with them? Had no idea that the Archcanon gets this privilege. Neat. DRAGON GUARD^(TALK) 19:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

100% - Archcanon can talk to them without any problems--Ukraine007 (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

WoahBro!I give good information. Why did you remove? Test yourself at last! — Unsigned comment by Ukraine007 (talk • contribs) at 14:06 on 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you will have to contact WhoaBro on his talk page. Tagging someone to get attention does not work here.

That said, why is it relevant that Tholer Saryoni will not be attacked while wearing the Indoril Helmet or Cuirass if this never happens in unmodded gameplay? Or does it? —MortenOSlash (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Now I'm, Nerevarine the boss, Archcanon of the Temple . And I'm going to wear Indoril Cuirass..... ;)) --Ukraine007 (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Then it should not be on Tholer Saryoni's page. I think it maybe should be on the quest page. —MortenOSlash (talk) 05:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Transfer - I agree. It is better here - Morrowind: Tribunal Temple--Ukraine007 (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

(←) Ukraine, your assertion is false. Hence you have received a warning. DRAGON GUARD^(TALK) 23:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Ten Pace Boots

What did you mean by this edit? I can make absolutely no sense of it... -- SarthesArai ^Talk 20:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I mean, I wrote the texture itself an editor--Ukraine007 (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It's subjective content and not noteworthy at all. DRAGON GUARD^(TALK) 20:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You wrote an editor for that texture? Still, information about modding morrowind is not part of this site's purpose. -- SarthesArai ^Talk 20:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Warning

[removed] DRAGON GUARD^(TALK) 23:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Dragon Guard, which edit deserved an official warning? I did a cursory glance through his edit history and I didn't see anything that wasn't in good faith. --MetaCthulhu (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The one about the 'Archcanon' privilege. DRAGON GUARD^(TALK) 10:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

1. There is nothing malicious about this users' edits about Archcanon 'priviledge' nor do they have any characteristics of vandalism ("nonsense" is more than just false information). 2. Those edits were made 2 months ago, why wouldn't they have been considered vandalism then?

I'm not sure if I have the power/authority to, but I would consider this warning null and remove it as there is no merit to it. •WoahBro^►talk 11:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how long it took me to complete the Temple questline? I was on Xbox, and hadn't done the quests before. I wanted to so I could see if the assertion is true, and now it feels like I've wasted my time. DRAGON GUARD^(TALK) 12:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, but we also needed an independent test to confirm/deny the claim--you should have just saved to create a go-back point. We cannot give warnings to people for just adding something that they thought was true. Maybe Ukraine had a mod or something that unknowingly created the conditions for their note in their game. Mods don't get documented on the site, but this is still not a case of maliciously or knowingly adding false information.

From UESPWiki:Vandalism: "Vandalism is...a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the wiki. [...] Any edit made in good faith is not vandalism. Unjustifiably labeling someone's edits as vandalism can be seen as insulting and therefore false accusations of vandalism should be avoided. [...] Even apparent bad faith edits that do not make their intent for malice explicitly clear cannot be considered vandalism. [...] Not all vandalism is obvious and not all controversial edits are vandalism. Please give careful consideration to whether the new information is correct, false but submitted in good faith, or an act of obvious vandalism."

I recommend that you review the two linked pages above. Again, it's unfortunate that you feel like you wasted your time, but it is not the fault of the user--player beware of any false information. •WoahBro^►talk 13:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I knew it was too good to be true. Still, I wanted to do the Temple quests, and thought I'd check it out upon completion of the questline while I was there. In hindsight, I should've got round to confirming/denying the claim sooner. It would have been nice if the user stated that a mod caused it, if that is the case. Actually, come to think of it, wouldn't it have been documented by now if you could speak to an Ordinator while wearing their armour and not get attacked? Absolutely. Therefore, I declare the assertion false if mods are out of it. And outrageous. It's bad enough that someone put bogus info on the site, but do you know where the real problem lies? The fact no-one else tested it in-game and came back denying or confirming the claim. DRAGON GUARD^(TALK) 19:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

(←) I've added a topic on the Administrator Noticeboard about getting this warning removed. It's up to the admins' discretion, but I believe the warning came from a misunderstanding of the UESP's policies and guidlines and is undeserved. --MetaCthulhu (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it. —Legoless (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Well as far as I'm concerned, Ukraine's game is up. Oh, the horror... I still have to resist the urge to throw my controller at the television whenever I walk around High Fane or any other temple. If he re-adds the info again, will he be warned? Apparently the warning would be undeserved, and admins can go straight to blocking if necessary. DRAGON GUARD^(TALK) 20:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Dragon Guard, please remember to assume good faith. —Legoless (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)