User talk:Longpinkytoes

Welcome!

Hello Longpinkytoes! 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
• 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, 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!).

Please consider supporting the UESP elsewhere on the web:

• Facebook: our official Facebook page.
• Google+: our official Google+ page.
• Tumblr: our official Tumblr blog.
• Twitter: our official Twitter account.
• YouTube: our official YouTube channel.

Feel free to practice editing in the sandbox. If you would like to discuss the games or lore, consider checking out our blog, our Discord, or the forums. If you need any help, don't hesitate to contact one of our mentors. Lastly, thanks once again for joining the UESPWiki, have fun! Echo (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Image Standards

Hey, I've noticed you uploading several images and adding them to articles, thanks! However, we have image standards depending on each situation. We use certain aspect ratios and naming formats, so if you plan on doing this more, let me point you to the image standards, there's also a section below it detailing naming conventions. The page also has plenty of tips on taking screenshots and how to implement them on pages, if that could hold your interest ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Signature

Looking at you signature, I am not sure you are aware that to sign a message you can put in ~~~~ at the end of the message? It will even allow you to automatically get the correct timestamp at the second you save your contribution.—MortenOSlash (talk) 08:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

i sign all my messages that way

i wonder why it's not doing that.

longpinkytoes 16:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure you have not manually changed the signature in your preferences, so it does not work as per default setup? —MortenOSlash (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

under user prefs there's a green check mark for:

if checked, the above markup will be used for your name when you sign with longpinkytoes or longpinkytoes 17:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC);

including any Wiki markup, links, or other valid formatting that it includes.

longpinkytoes 18:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Archives

Please don't edit archives (other than maintenance edits such as link fixes). If you have new substantial input to an archived discussion, please create a new one on the current talk page. Thanks! -- SarthesArai ^Talk 18:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

sure thing! should the new post reference the one in the archives if the original is already confirmed?

longpinkytoes 19:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

If the old post is relevant to your new post then yes, link it. In regards propositions for additions to a page, your new post should make your arguments why it should be on the page, not just add details or attempt to clarify what someone else said. Proposals that appear to be "confirmed" or accepted, but have not been put on the page, often lack a sense of certainty about belonging on the page (i.e. no-one has had the confidence to add it without fear of rejection), so they will need an extra push to go from the archive to being put on a page. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 20:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

that would make a fine addition to the header of the talk (or archives) page ^_^

-

the signal-to-noise ratio is not very good on the talk page and archives,

but some of the reasons for discrediting ideas are, well, unreasonable.

in 18 pages of archives there were no reasons for, and many instances of

a commenter rudely and/or abruptly dismissing what clearly took hard work

and was about something in which the OP had a measure of passion/investment.

if suggesting an idea takes research, "i haven't heard of it" should not be enough to discredit one.

-

perhaps 'nope'-ing new suggestions could be gently discouraged?

longpinkytoes 20:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

95% of Easter Eggs are fairly obvious when pointed out, the other 5% is a lot harder to spot unless you know the alluded material very well, and are beyond question when compared. It is up to the person making the suggestion to point out what it is an Easter Egg of, which in a lot of cases they do not. The only hard work that should be involved is in finding the correct links to the alluded material, you should not need to make multiple assumptions in order to make the game suit the assertion. Being hard on what constitutes an Egg is the only way to prevent those pages becoming an overgrown mess of assertions and guesses that make no sense at all, even to experts on both subjects. And as most of them are not bullet-proof assertions, the burden of proof must fall on the person making the assertion, as they should, in theory, have better knowledge of the subject, which in too many cases is not true. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 21:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

lolyus. i just read 18 pages of demonstrating your exact point, and i couldn't agree more ;)

my argument was that discrediting an idea requires having more knowledge than the OP to be valid.

rather than having zero knowledge and a strong opinion. the OP should not have to ask "on what grounds?"

longpinkytoes 21:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

to-do list

Elenwen

Leap of Faith _ _ _ leap games

Arvak

Eyes of the Falmer _ _ _ eye thieves

longpinkytoes 21:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)