User talk:Aliana

Welcome

Hello Aliana! Welcome to the wiki. I hope you enjoy using the site and find the information on it useful. If you decide you want to help improve any of our pages, we're always welcoming to new editors so feel free. You might want to look at our Getting Started page for some tips on how to begin, then play in our Sandbox for a while to practice. If you need any help or advice, please ask one of our mentors. Enjoy! --- Game Lord^{Talk|Contribs} 13:52, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

Your Edits

Let me begin by thanking you for the work you've been putting in to improve the site. You've made some valuable contributions, and the site is better for them.

The problem is that one constant theme with your edits is that you have a habit of making a change and then challenging other people to prove you wrong. That's the wrong way to go about editing the site. Making a change is fine, but please don't react with such hostility if it gets reverted. If it turns out to be controversial, explain how you tested it on the article's talk page. Many of the pages you have been changing have remained untouched in months, so to see a new editor coming in and basically rewriting them without explaining why is going to cause a lot of other editors to be distrustful. Nobody is going to claim that the wiki is 100 accurate, but on the other hand, nobody else has had a problem with the information. Coming up with more... restrained edit summaries would help too.

I hope you become a productive, and helpful editor to the site. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 10:17, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

Understood, and thanks, but it's frustrating to see two pages where one explains what actually happens in a specific case and the other has a wild and incorrect extrapolation of that to a general rule and even contradicts the original statement, and then have some admin just do a knee-jerk revert without even bothering to read the page with the explanation on it - which I even linked for him so he all he had to do was click on it. There's not much I can do if someone doesn't WANT to look at the "supporting" information or chooses to ignore it, even when it's been on the site for http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion:Speed&diff=328905&oldid=8360 two and a half years already, let alone if it's something I just discovered a few days ago that challenges long-held beliefs, especially since I'm new here as you say.

I'll admit I've been a bit... blunt at times in the past, but exactly which summaries http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aliana do you have a problem with recently? You pointed out they were tactless, I made an effort to be more careful with them. I don't see "OMG U NOOB LOL" on that change: which by the way was made AFTER the explanation. Supporting the other admins is fine, but his attitude is that once someone says something, even if it's wrong, only an admin is allowed to change it. If that's how you want to run the place I'm fine with that (seriously, not sarcastically) - I'll just keep my stuff on the Talk pages and let someone else move it over to the main pages when they get round to it.

The hostile response wasn't to the revert, it was to the arrogant comment attached to it ( which, yes, shoe on other foot etc. I get it. :) ) after I'd gone to the trouble of digging into it and the real reason the spell works was long since available to anyone who actually looked: he didn't, and just insisted he was right anyway. There's nothing personal to it though: I'm sure we'll both do better next time.

Let me elaborate further on why your edit to Oblivion:Useful Spells was reverted. You probably wouldn't have found that particular spell if I hadn't given you the link to it. I gave that link to show you a statement that already existed on the site about the subject that was under discussion. Policy in such a case is to wait with making edits like that until consensus is reached. --Timenn < talk > 06:01, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't see how "how I found it" is in any way relevant, but no matter. The revert was just "unlucky" timing: you saw the change to the spells page before the link to the Speed page, and did what was right for the knowledge you had at the time. Nobody's blaming you for that. We all have all the information now, so just undo the revert once you're comfortable you understand exactly what's going on, and we'll close the book on this.Aliana 20:43, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

To make it complete, the full effects of Speed on detection should still be tested. For now, this should do. As for the way you found it; it was a link I provided not so you could edit the page right away, but as something to think on first. So yes, it was mostly unfortunate timing, but I'm OK with the current change. --Timenn < talk > 05:32, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Tip of the Day

I saw your request for help on the Mace of Molag Bal page. Take a look at this. The NewLeft tag, along with its friends NewRight and NewLine do what you're looking for. Hope that helps! –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 00:45, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks - the "Formatting" page doesn't cover those

Boo!

Hey, I was patrolling and I see you've been editing a bunch. I haven't looked at many of your edits, but keep up the (hopefully) good work. --Timmeh ^Talk 22:36, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks. It's mostly just out-of-date comments that I'm bringing current - things from before even the first patch and random wild guesses that people made when nobody knew anything about how the game worked, that have just stayed around forever because they've been around forever and nobody dares tell the emperor he has no clothes. It's a lot easier to see the inconsistencies when you're a fresh pair of eyes than when you've got two years of preconceptions. I'm quite proud of "solving" how Sneak and Chameleon REALLY work though - that was hard.  :)

That "unsigned" thing...

Hey Aliana - congratulations on finding your password! Just a small annoying request - could you sign your talk page posts with the four tildes (as described on top of the pages)? We need to know exactly who wrote what, also in the future, and it would be very helpful if you could do that. Thanks! --Krusty 09:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Feel free

Hey again! I want to tell you what I have told everybody else - you are more than welcome to make grammar corrections when I post a page and make it "official". Grammar is not my strong side and most editors and project members knows this, and they respect it and change it when necessary. So instead of pointing out all the mistakes, making me look like a d*** in the process, please just change the bad grammar. Thanks. --Krusty 18:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was being helpful / informative, detailing nuances that nobody would expect a non-native speaker to know. That's why I explained them rather than just changing it. Oh well. :P "Just Do It" is fine by me though, since it's a lot less work. Thanks for letting me know you prefer that.

No problem! And I appreciate the corrections nevertheless! It's a bad habit of mine; I spend days researching something and then I suddenly just have to get it out of my system, sometimes posting it a bit too early. Still, you don't have too many corrections and that is good! Btw - are we 100% sure that Fathis will stay in Chorrol no matter what? --Krusty 21:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I checked the logic in his unpatched packages vs the fixes UOP made, and did both possible endings for Sins with UOP removed and 48 hours of waiting/travel/etc after completing it.

Cool with me. That means that the Dovyn schedule is correct when it comes to Fathis and Chorrol. --Krusty 21:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to my edit

• I would like to apologize for my error on the edit regarding on target restore health spells. I believed that the article I was editing was Absorb Health, which IS exclusively on touch. Again, that is my mistake, not my vandalism.Dstebbins 18:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I know. :) (that it was just a mistake, not malicious). I've been you, editing things that are "obviously" wrong or adding things that are "obviously" right, only to discover that there are loopholes or bugs or whatever that make them (im)possible after all. That's why it's so important to test stuff.

It seems you're still a bit confused though: you DID edit Absorb Health. You can't make an on-target Absorb Health SPELL, but you can use it on bows regardless, which is what you actually changed: when the arrow hits, IT is "touch", so the Restore effect runs even though you're miles away.

--Aliana 04:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Please don't make accusations of lying as you did here. Whether or not you believe somebody did the testing, calling them a liar isn't going to help the situation. The etiquette policy states that personal attacks are grounds for an immediate block but I'm giving some friendly advice because you're doing some good work on the site and I don't want to see it go further. Please be more careful in the future. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I took great care to NOT call him a liar, which is why I also changed "evidence" to "indication", specifically because that poor word choice implied that I felt he was. I did point out that the facts could easily lead someone to that conclude that, but not that I had. Your revert changes my comment to misrepresent my position, and I don't appreciate that: while it is technically something that I wrote, it's an awkward topic and it was only later that I realised I'd phrased it badly. --Aliana 15:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ack! Sorry, I misread the history. Great, now I'm accusing you of stuff you didn't do because I'm confused. Sorry sorry sorry! --Aliana 15:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to ask what you meant... Okay. No harm done. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's what confused me: the link you pasted here is to the first version of my post. When I saw that it didn't say what I know it said when I was done with it, I thought that meant you'd undone it. Sorry again. --Aliana 16:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I see no issue here. I think WP:SPADE is a good source for my reasoning. Elliot (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Confused... Also I Hope You'll be around

How did you get your Skeleton Key mod to work? I thought you couldn't make an on touch open spell in the CS? In any case, however you did it good work. Hope to see you around more - we've been working on some people and I've missed having someone who's willing (and able) to do detailed digging though the CS and in-game! (Also I didn't forget RH. He's not always physically up to helping out).--Ghurhak gro-Demril _{or TAO}^Yes? 07:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My computer broke, and then I didn't have time to play any more for ages. :( I lost all my mods, but I'll try and work it out again: I gave a copy of it to a friend so if I can get it back maybe that'll remind me. Aliana 00:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've got it now: it's at http://www.filefront.com/17723546/Ali_SkeletonKey.esp if you want it. Apparently the trick is that it isn't a Spell at all really, it's a Lesser Power. So instead of doing a "real" Open Lock (which like you say can only be used On Target) it runs a script, and the script is just

scn AliSkeletonKeyUnlock
begin ScriptEffectStart
if (GetLocked && (GetLockLevel <= 99))
  unlock
endif

(It also auto-loots any gold in the chest: I don't remember adding that, but it makes sense). The rest of it is just adding the Lesser Power itself and pointing it at that script, and adding it to the player when they get the Skeleton Key. (And changing the quest to be available at level 3, because I apparently got really tired of the horrible slow buggy minigame). HTH Aliana 11:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Blood on the Ice project

Hey Aliana! Seems like you’ve won the questionable honor of helping me with the countless problems with Bugs on the Ice; or, at least, one of them – the very beginning of the quest. Thanks for your offer on Nephele’s talk – hereby accepted! Fingers crossed it is possible without the damn CK kit. First things first, though:

• HERE is my Sandbox. In there, I have written the complete, painful walkthrough, based on tests and countless playthroughs. I have also moved the ridiculous amount of bugs from the article into the Sandbox, then cleaned up the most ridiculous ones.

Biggest question right now: How do you initiate the quest? Countless theories has been thrown into the air; the Game Guide says “leave and enter Windhelm Hold four times, then enter Windhelm at night”. This sounds more or less plausible, but exactly what qualifies as “WIndhelm Hold” – and how does the triggering works exactly? What we basically need is a bullet-proof way of triggering the quest, a step-by-step-technique (let’s just forget all the bugs related to other quests for now). Let’s just find a way from the moment you enter Windhelm for the very first time. If you can solve that, I’d be as happy as I can be (wiki-happy, that is!). Check out the articles overlong talk page for a few problems with triggering the quest, along with some possible solutions.

Lastly, I hope you’re able to do some testing in-game yourself – in any case, just tell me what to test and it will be done. You know how patient I am – and this needs to be correct. Thanks in advance! --Krusty 07:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, the bugs are what will *determine* the "bullet-proof way of triggering the quest", and it'll be massively easier (for me, at least) to pin those down once I can get my hands on the CK rather than stabbing at them blindly. Judging by the sheer volume of problems with it, it looks like it would be so inefficient to try and sort them out by trial and error before then that it would take all the time I have, instead of just a couple of hours once I have the right tools to work with, so I think the only sensible option is to leave it until then, despite all the frustration it's causing. Aliana 17:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree - the current explanation is good enough (it worked for me the very first time) and while your reply is the very reason I'm writing quest walkthroughs at the moment, let's wait for the CK so we can determine the exact requirements. One thing, though - can you identify the supposed reward for completing this quest? According to the game guide, it is the "title of Investigator of Windhelm" - others call it "Guards' Favor". I have looked all over my menus, and the only evidence is Jorleif's words when he finishes the quest -something about the guards being friendlier from now on. Is the meaning of this visible in the game files? --Krusty 17:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Ali. If was just checking some BOTI-related stuff with the 1.5 patch, and noticed something odd, related to this old discussion of ours. I visited Wuunferth at 8pm, and he was asleep in a bed in his quarters. Now, I must admit, I can’t even remember if that bed was there before, but I’m certain I’ve never seen him sleep. Can you see if anything in his schedule was changed with 1.5? Also, for good measure, he will still wander around in the throne room from midnight to 4am. --Krusty 11:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Funny - I don't remember the bed either, and I did all 5 of the Windhelm Bedlam quests in that room about a week ago. I'm sure it has been there all along, but since he never uses it and it's away from the loot, it might as well not be. :P I don't see anything obvious in his schedule (though I don't have the old version to compare it against), but it could just be that the objects were fixed rather than him.

Strangely, in my current save he still sleeps in Jorleif's bed. I checked the date on the "Prisoner 001" save, and that was actually way back in 1.4 still, so I have a nasty feeling some stuff might be sticking around from my first few game-weeks of play, and BOTI is definitely something I would have done during that timeframe. I might do a clean restart this weekend: if I do I'll re-run this ASAP so I can compare it with what I think should be happening from the CK. Aliana 02:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Warning - Edit warring

If you reinstate that note again without properly discussing it on the talk page, you will be blocked. Do I make myself clear? rpeh •T•C•E• 18:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Quests and Dungeons

Hey Aliana. I just wanted to explain my revert a bit better than the edit summary allowed me to do. Because of the endless delay of the CK, quest pages are the only walkthrough articles we know how to do. The dungeon pages, on the other hand, will all suffer the same fate as the OB dungeons, which means the usual lists pointing to maps and so on. However, we cannot be sure that all that info is included in the CK – so for now, let’s just try and keep the quest pages decent (I’ll admit, the BFB page is overlong) – even if it means a bit of redundancy. --Krusty 19:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem: I originally just wrote up a note for you/Nephele/whoever pointing out that the place has three walkthroughs, which is really bad, but I didn't know what the best way to resolve it was. (I don't understand what the "quest pages are the only walkthrough articles we know how to do" part means BTW, but I'll take your word for it). Then I remembered Miscarcand and figured however that handled it was the right answer. I was actually a bit surprised to find that (place) is what we'd gone with there, but after a good night's sleep it made sense, so I went with that approach too. Aliana 19:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Haha, okay – I’ll try and explain it a bit better; your approach was not bad at all, but I believe we always need some kind of dungeon walkthrough on quest pages – walkthroughs with focus on the quest at hand. That is basically why I chose to ignore the Saarthal page, then ignored the Under Saarthal page and ended up writing a unique walkthrough for the exact same ruin on the Forbidden Legend page. So that’s basically another place with three walkthroughs right there. I did it the hard way for three reasons; layout is better, writing is more consistent and the player can focus on the quest at hand. You can always argue that Saarthal IS part of the College of Winterhold quest line, but the goal for Forbidden Legend is different. A bit of the same with some of the Companions quests – if you explore the ruin prior to the quest, you will be on your own. If you are on the quest, you will often be accompanied by some buggy Companion, making exploration different – and in need of a separate walkthrough.

So – that was the long version, and part of why place and quest pages should be kept separated at the moment. A much more obvious explanation can be found hidden on Nephele’s talk page. In her response, Nephele explains it all, really. Place pages will be part of the expected revamp-thing, probably consistent with our beloved OPRP, and walkthroughs will be shortened to include the most important info only – because, when the time comes, they will be accompanied by lists and maps extracted from the CK. So, in the end, we need the quest-related info on the quest pages. :) --Krusty 20:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Even for places that are quest-locked though, what you're walking through during that part is the place: the quest page has plenty of its "own" stuff to worry about, like how to start it, quest stages, rewards, next/previous quests if it's part of a line, and so on. Aliana 21:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(←) Looking around a bit more, Secrets of the Ayleids is a perfect example of why location walkthroughs need to be kept off quest pages. That involves *two* dungeon crawls, but again just reduces them to "wade through <link>" and *then* "now quest stuff happens (return item to <x>, etc)". Which highlights a mistake on the BFB(place) page: just like quest pages shouldn't have location stuff on them, location pages shouldn't have post-location quest stuff on them ("now take <item> you found here to <person>"). Cool - I think I'm starting to get the "separation points" clear in my head. umm, except they conflict with what you said about how you DO want location walkthroughs on quest pages. So now I'm confused again. I think I'm going to just give up and let you worry about it, and go back to killing dragons while I wait for hell to freeze over and the CK to actually show up. Thanks for taking the time to try and explain the reasoning though: I appreciate the effort, and maybe it'll click for me sometime later on now. Aliana 22:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't look on too many OB quest pages as we'll have to reinvent the wheel due to the multitude of related quests for some of the Skyrim places - and I think you're in the exact same spot as me; waiting for the CK so we can figure out exactly how to handle this. See you when hell freezes over! :D --Krusty 23:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrolled Edits

In case you haven't noticed it yet, you've been nominated to have your edits autopatrolled. There are no duties associated with this nomination, but since we've had at least one person who refused their nomination, I thought I'd let you know. Your nomination can be found here. If you're fine with it, there's nothing more you need to do, but if for some reason you'd rather have your edits patrolled, feel free to mention it, either on your nomination or here. – Robin Hood↝talk 03:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)