User talk:ThuumofReason/Archive 1

This is an archive of past User talk:ThuumofReason discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Welcome!

Hello! Welcome to UESPWiki. It's always good to have new members. If you would like to help improve any of our pages, you may want to take a look at the following links:

• Policies and Guidelines: UESPWiki standards and expectations
• Quick Editing Guide: a quick guide to wiki markup
• Getting Started: how you can help

If you, on the other hand, would like to spice up your userpage, take a look at this link:

• Userboxes: near complete list of userboxes, including a guide to make your own

When you're editing, it's always a good idea to leave edit summaries to explain the changes you have made to a particular page, and remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes ~~~~. Also, the "show preview" button is a great way to view the changes you've made so far without actually saving the page (our patrollers really appreciate it!).

Feel free to practice editing in the sandbox or discuss the games in the forums. If you need any help, don't hesitate to contact one of our mentors. Good to hear you already have wiki experience Have fun! --RIM 20:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Easter Eggs Page

Kudos to you for even going near the EEs. After about thirty seconds on there, I've pretty much been staying away. Gideon Dragontongue 23:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Replies

Since my replies were removed from User_talk:Elliot#Litany_of_Larceny, I'll post them here:

First point: There seems to be no way to access them normally in the game however. This is like some of the quest names. I guess this will need further discussion with a broader audience, before we go removing things like that from individual articles. A solution to make it somehow clear the text doesn't show maybe?

Second point: I'm not sure it is the right time to propose all the articles for deletion, that may or may not be found in the game. As long as we are not sure, it's probably better to keep them for now.

--Alfwyn 19:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent comment

This comment is not appropriate for the wiki, even if it is directed towards a vandal. elliot (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Forsworn Conspiracy

I noticed that you removed a long list of bugs from the page. Are you sure that they are not true? It's not that I doubt you or anything it's just that you removed a lot of points at once. RIM 15:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Easter Eggs

Can you please try to moderate your tone a little on the Skyrim Easter Eggs talk page. You're coming off as being the final arbiter of what can go on the page, which is a little inappropriate for something that's a community effort. – Robin Hood↝talk 22:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No One Escapes Cidhna Mine Bugs

Hey ThuumofReason! I just came across this edit, where you removed a good chunk of the bugs from the quest page. If all of those things really aren't bugs, that's awesome--I'm a fan of small, tidy Bugs sections. However, I couldn't find anything on the talk page clarifying the deletion...could you maybe leave a little note there explaining why all of those things needed to go? Thanks! –Eshe^talk 12:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Bugs

I notice you've been removing bugs because of patch fixes, and I just wanted to let you know that it's better to leave the bug listed on the page (it's still relevant) and instead change the vn=1 parameter to OSP|1.5 (or whichever patch is applicable).

Also, rather than adding a vn=1 tag to confirm, use confirmed=1 to confirm (and only for bugs which aren't added by yourself-- the point is to add confirmation from a secondary user). You had the right idea here, just a minor error. Hope this helps in the future! :) ABCface^◥ 10:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That was a while ago, actually. I haven't been doing that on purpose since I saw the community decision. I am aware of the procedure, but I appreciate you letting me know. ThuumofReason 12:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I noticed a few of those when I was patrolling some of the older edits, and I didn't think to check your more recent contributions to see if you were still doing that or not. So, nevermind then. :) ABCface^◥ 18:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Mirmulnir Edit

I saw you removing the "most likely second dragon encounter part". I believe there is at least 1 dragon encounter possible before this one: skeletal dragon from the College's main quest, am I right? ~ Dwarfmp 19:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You're supposed to reply on the same page, by the way. Going back and forth on each other's talk pages isn't exactly coherent to other editors. Well don't worry about it, I'll just adjust the page again ~ Dwarfmp 19:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

If you say so. I'm just used to doing it this way, since it lets you know I replied. Besides, it's not the other editors I'm addressing, it's you :-/ ThuumofReason 20:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be pretty stupid of me to post something and then not check the page again :P ~ Dwarfmp 20:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

True enough. ThuumofReason 20:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Warned for nonsense

Hello,

Recently I was warned for adding nonsense to the Official Plug-ins page, despite that my edit was legit. "Loading screens by your mom" is an actual mod made by Bethesda production director Ashley Cheng. It is mentioned by Pete Hines toward the end of this interview: [1]

It probably doesn't belong on the page anyway, but could the vandalism strike be removed from my IP adress?

Thanks — Unsigned comment by 94.226.179.75 (talk) at 13:00 on 28 April 2012

Looks like it's a legitimate mod, here for details. Not nonsense then but did not belong on the page. The Silencer has spoken^Talk 14:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry about the misunderstanding. I'll do what I can. ThuumofReason 14:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Daggerfall Edits

I'm going to ask you to stop editing in the Daggerfall namespace until a consensus can be reached with PLRDLF and other users. Considering he wrote most of the namespace, I am more inclined to defer to him in most instances. Still, you're showing an edit warring mentality, and that should be avoided. Thanks. elliot (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

"Edit warring"? I reverted once, dude. Just once. And they were to conform with article standards.ThuumofReason 20:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, just because he wrote the articles doesn't mean they shouldn't be updated to conform with the wiki's standards. It also doesn't make him the sole authority on what is and isn't factually true. I'm assuming you're familiar with Daggerfall yourself, because "I'm going with him just because he wrote the article" isn't a valid reason if you don't have personal experience with, and knowledge of, the subject being discussed. ThuumofReason 20:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, no offense, but I don't understand how you're in any position to tell me what I can and can't edit, especially since I'm one of the only people making edits in that namespace. It's not like those pages are getting the same edit traffic as the Skyrim pages, so I really don't see any reason to stop editing Daggerfall pages entirely. ThuumofReason 21:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, calm down. I asked you—I didn't tell you—to stop. I just recommended that you discuss with him before any more edits are made, because they will likely be changed back by him. elliot (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

A Noble's Debts

You may be right that the wording is better, but my understanding of the quest is that in the unmodified game, you'll get a gold brick, not a deed, which was my main point of concern with the edit. Have I misunderstood? – Robin Hood↝talk 22:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you're right, but if you look on PLR's talk page, we discussed how the modified version was akin to the Unofficial Oblivion Patch. Something like that, anyway. ThuumofReason 12:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that conversation. As long as you guys have worked it out, I'm good with it. I just thought it was an incomplete reversion. – Robin Hood↝talk 16:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Daggerfall Irrelevant Information

You removed a large amount of information from Daggerfall:Order of the Lamp, claiming that it was irrelevant. If you're going to clean up the Daggerfall namespace, I'd recommend asking about how relevant information is before outright removing it. I can't see anything to justify removing the majority of a page simply because it's "irrelevant", so I've undone your edit. --Legoless 17:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. I'll give it another shot and leave that info there. ThuumofReason 17:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I reworked the page again using information from the game files. I put the relevant information into the table and main section, and condensed it when necessary (You'd be surprised how much of that could be summed up in a single sentence). The remainder of the removed information was purely conjectural and used an improper tone for an article. The article now contains all the information necessary for a category page on an unjoinable faction. ThuumofReason 18:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Forum-like post

Why did you remove this comment? It looked pretty valid to me. There's some alchemy calculators on the page, and to be up-to-date, we would need one that includes Dawnguard ingredients. I personally think it's a good thing to bring up. Vely^►t►e 20:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright. The way it was phrased just seemed really similar to a lot of forum posts I've seen about people asking for this or that mod to be made/linked to. Plus, it kind of sounded like all he wanted was a list of all ingredient effects. In any case, that's the kind of thing we can just put on the page without linking to apps that do the same thing. ThuumofReason 21:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Was it necessary to give a warning for this content? The first edit may have been more opinionated than informational, but is it all considered vandalism? It really looks like the edits were made in good faith. Vely^►t►e 01:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I was looking more at this one here. Maybe "vandalism" isn't the right word, but either way it's not appropriate for an article, or even the talk page. The second and third edits I can see as maybe being in good faith, but it's still not worth specifically noting on the page. I guess I could remove that warning if it hasn't been already, if you really think they were in good faith, but the first edit, as well as the short length of time between the three, not to mention the fact that that IP hasn't made any other edits, makes it hard for me to believe that they actually were in good faith. That's just me, though. ThuumofReason 01:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The first, to me, seems opinionated. Like "Fus Ro Dah the big yellow globe in Blackreach, it's awesome". It's true, but the phrase is an opinion. If you haven't noticed, a lot of new and anonymous users make multiple edits instead of using the Show Preview function, and they use a tone we don't like on the wiki, so this user doesn't look like anything special.

I think an advice section rather than a warning would have been much more suited to this situation. If there's any doubt, I prefer advice over warnings--it doesn't scare the user away and it's friendlier if the edit was, in fact, made in good faith. Vely^►t►e 01:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep that in mind. My knee-jerk reaction to unconstructive edits is "vandalism", so I guess I need to work harder on the good faith bit. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and thanks especially for the suggestion about giving an advice notice instead of a warning. It's always nice to hear constructive criticism rather than lecturing :-| ThuumofReason 02:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I try my best. And yes, working on good faith and fighting knee-jerk reactions sounds like a good thing. I always like to err on the side of good faith. Vely^►t►e 02:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Reverting addition of bugs to OB:Jauffre

Why did you remove those bugs rather than just do the bug format and add vn=1? Those bugs are hindering, if not damaging to progressing the Main Quest, should they be proven true, so unless you have proof to back up the deletion, I went ahead and readded them with the aforementioned formatting. Snowmane^{(talk•email)} 01:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The third one maybe, but it seems incredible that Jauffre would attack the player for no reason while simultaneously speaking to the countess. Don't the CK factions prevent those kinds of things from happening? Otherwise Jauffre would have attacked the player on sight, not during the middle of a scripted scene. It seems more likely to me that something like that would be a result of a player's in-game actions, like maybe if he was messing around with Frenzy spells and accidentally hit Jauffre.

The one about Jauffre never asking you if you want to join the Blades...meh, I guess it's possible, but it could also have something to do with Jauffre's disposition towards the player or something, right? I just felt like they needed to be either explained better or more thoroughly tested. Also, I don't think any of the bugs listed are actually detrimental to the main quest's progression. You don't actually need to join the Blades, and without his armor, Jauffre is just more likely to die defending Bruma. That doesn't stop the main quest. ThuumofReason 01:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Bug Removal

I've undone your removal of a bug from Oblivion:Benirus Manor. Please test a bug before outright removing it from an article - especially when dealing with Oblivion articles, which are usually of a high quality and have already been sufficiently verified. If you doubt a bug's legitimacy, use a {{vn}} tag or move it to the talk page. —Legoless 01:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait...but you can't fast travel from inside. Ever. Am I misunderstanding what was being said there? ThuumofReason 11:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You can fast travel from inside other player homes. —Legoless 11:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'll be damned. You're right.ThuumofReason 11:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't feel bad, Thuum, that's what I said when that bug was first added to the page and I tested it. :) – Robin Hood↝talk 20:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Daggerfall Thieves Guild

Where does your information come from? The Daggerfall Chronicle says what I've corrected. It's by far accurate I know this myself after playing the game for years, but unlike training skills you can't look up the required skills just by playing the game. The same goes for formulas, so in that case the info from the DF Chronicle should be considered as authentic unlike someone can prove them false.--PLRDLF (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2012 (GMT)

So you're saying the training skills are different from the required skills? If that's true, then it's my mistake. Sorry about that. ThuumofReason (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2012 (GMT)

Well than at least this issue is solved, I don't like changing articles back and forth the whole time either, and yes all guilds that offer training, offer more than just the required skills. This can be easily checked, the infos have been around on their respective pages for a long time.--PLRDLF (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2012 (GMT)

IMDB link for Serana

The link you provided for Laura Bailey's IMDB article on the Serana article doesn't seem to be working correctly. Can you check it, please? --Xyzzy ^Talk 04:47, 7 January 2013 (GMT)

Yeah, sure. ThuumofReason (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2013 (GMT)

Hey Xyzz, I just checked, and none of the other IMDB links are working either. Could it be that there's something wrong with the template or the link? ThuumofReason (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2013 (GMT)

Yeah, you're right. You got the imdb article number correct, but the template doesn't seem to be creating the proper link. Can someone with template expertise check this, please? --Xyzzy ^Talk 14:39, 7 January 2013 (GMT)

Of course. I'm not so versed myself, but if I meet anybody on the wiki who is, I promise you'll be the first to know. Until then, you might have better luck looking on the community portal than on my talk page :-) ThuumofReason (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2013 (GMT)

It's something that has to be fixed serverside (interwiki link). I'll contact the people being able to fix it. --Alfwyn (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2013 (GMT)

Fixed. See IMDb Interwiki Links for more information. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 23:43, 7 January 2013 (GMT)

I assumed that your talk page was being watched. I was right ;) --Xyzzy ^Talk 06:28, 8 January 2013 (GMT)

Congratulations!

Congratulations on your promotion to Userspace Patroller – feel free to add the appropriate userbox to your page! --Krusty (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2013 (GMT)

Thanks, Krusty! ThuumofReason (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2013 (GMT)

Welcome, Thuum. Took you long enough. Congratulations.--Br3admax (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2013 (GMT)

Re: Skyrim Easter Eggs

I'm sorry that you felt under attack but that's just because I was being vain and wanted you to feel so. I truly believed that you were wrong and misinformed about the very definition of the word Easter Egg but then again I could've handled it differently but online anonymity and vanity got the better of me. I also know it's possible that I'm wrong and just have built my own reasoning around it. I still currently disagree with you but for now I'll just go think about my own understanding of the term. 91.155.46.141 11:23, 10 February 2013 (GMT)

Thank you for saying that. I appreciate it, and I accept your apology. ThuumofReason (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2013 (GMT)

Hours of Skyrim

I don't wanna be picky, since it's your page after all, but would you be terribly offended if I asked you to update your hours of Skyrim a little less frequently...like maybe every 10 or 25 hours of play? I ask because I have every active staff member on my watchlist, as I know a few others do, and sometimes several edits a day are you updating your number of hours played. I think at this point, one hour more or less makes very little difference...you've played a lot. :) – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 23:59, 17 April 2013 (GMT)

Oh, very well. :-) I've actually been thinking of updating that template to reflect days instead of hours, so maybe I'll just go ahead and do that? ThuumofReason (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2013 (GMT)

That works well. Of course, then you make it sound like you spend days in a row doing nothing but playing Skyrim...which may well be the truth. :) – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 21:31, 18 April 2013 (GMT)

Hey, for the last few months I've had to juggle apartment hunting, schoolwork, and conducting two separate psychological research studies. I can spend my free time however I want. ThuumofReason (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2013 (GMT)

Seeing as I just passed 47 days, I'm in no position to talk. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 01:14, 19 April 2013 (GMT)

Well well...color me impressed, Messieur Hood. ThuumofReason (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2013 (GMT)

Prev: None

Up: User talk:ThuumofReason

Next: Archive 2