Hello Dstebbins! 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 me or one of our mentors. Enjoy! --SerCenKing 17:51, 28 March 2009 (EDT)
Hi Dstebbins! Thanks for all the contributions you've been making lately :). However, if you could please use the "Show preview" button to preview your edits before saving, it would be much appreciated. This helps cut down on multiple saves to a page, which makes it easier for Patrollers and other editors who watch the Recent Changes to keep track of things. Thanks! –Eshetalk 15:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The following question that you asked, and its answer, were lost in our recent database problems. Since I couldn't figure out which talk page you had created to ask the question, I opted to post it here. --NepheleTalk 04:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- What would happen if I head to Kvatch before heading to Weynon Priory? Would the questline be forced to this stage? Would Kvatch be in ruins without an Oblivion gate to account for the destruction? What would happen?— Unsigned comment by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) at 11:56 on 3 August 2009
- Not much. Kvatch is already in ruins, an Oblivion has already spawned there and you are able to do Oblivion:Breaking the Siege of Kvatch and Oblivion:The Battle for Castle Kvatch. You can't convince Martin to come with you as the dialogue options do not appear and you are not supposed to know Martin is the illegitimate son of the Emperor yet. Wolok gro-Barok 12:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Stop making pointless posts about how something in the game relates to "real life". This is a game. It's not real. Deal with it. And I've seen how unpleasant you are elsewhere, and at least you're consistent. Priam 20:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Do you really think that I don't know it's a game? The reason that I went into so much detail was to explain to people like you why these murders are not "unexpected." If you don't want to hear it, don't read it. It's that simple.Dstebbins 20:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Please try not engage in edit wars. Try to solve the matter on the talk page, and ask other members for help if you can't reach consensus. Reverting an edit to make a point is not a good way to do this. Considering the aftermath of this, I realise that this may not apply to the current situation anymore, but please consider it advice for future dealings. --Timenn-<talk> 21:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey there! We welcome all contributors to the site, and we enjoy all of the work they put it. But most of your edits have been reverted because they constitute as opinion, aren't really worth going into an article, are rants about something random, or are just not up to wiki standards. I think it would be extremely beneficial if you thought about your edits more before you actually make them (I can remember at least undoing about 20 of your edits). Not only will it save time, but it will be a good thing for the wiki. Thanks for helping, just think about what you are adding to the wiki before you do. Also, I suggest reading the links provided to you in the welcome message above. –Elliot talk 07:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Since I don't want to add noise to the article's talk page:
Amulet of Axes: 33% Reflect Damage Ring of the Iron Fist: 33% Reflect Damage 2 potions: 48% Reflect Damage
Total: 114%, with no shield, and no Birthsign dependency.
But that's not the point. I suggest you read the Armor page and learn how shields work. You appear to be unaware of some fairly basic game mechanics.
Even that isn't the point. The page is "Reflect Damage", not "Reflect Damage and other magic effects", and it's an important distinction. If every topic explicitly listed every other topic that had the tiniest relationship to it, especially when it's "things you can't do", the entire wiki would be a single gigantic page. It's the same reason comments like "100% Chameleon is useful here" or "if you want to sneak through the area, wear the Grey Cowl" don't appear on every single Place listing, or even "just" every single DB and/or TG quest page.
Think of it this way: Article pages provide the facts of their topic. Talk pages provide ideas on how best to use those facts, how they interact with other facts, and so on. It's not a hard and fast rule, but it's not a bad guideline to work with.
--Aliana 06:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Your edits, again
Your enthusiasm is admirable - but the correctness of many of your edits is rather less so. When you are wrong as a result of ignorance, that's fine: no-one expects you to know absolutely everything. However, when you are wrong simply because you made no effort at all to test your claims, all you do is damage your credibility.
The correct place for theories and other guesswork is an article's Talk page, not the article itself. Even if you can provide proof for one of them, the Talk page is still the correct place to start, not the article page, because the proof needs to be verifiable but does not belong on the "facts only" article pages.
There is no prize (at least, not that I know of) for sheer volume of edits. If you instead took the time to at least try to ensure that the edits you make were actually accurate, and did so on the correct pages, you would post fewer of them but you would at least have far fewer of them reverted, which I'm sure you find just as annoying as I find having to do in the first place.
Make quality your goal, not quantity. Best of luck. --Aliana 01:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- To give you an example, in case you're not sure what constitutes "proof": you claimed that "Since (Restore Health) only works on touch, you cannot enchant a bow with this effect (bows are on target)." If you'd bothered to actually GET a bow, go to Arcane U, and enchant it, you'd have discovered that it works fine. That's what I did, BEFORE reverting your edit, even though I was already 99.9% sure you were wrong.
- It's not other people's responsibility to disprove your claims; it's your responsibility to prove them. If you'd made any attempt at all to test it, you'd have known it wasn't true. On the other hand, if it had been true, you clearly showing the steps you took would help someone else quickly confirm it so the article could be updated with confidence in its accuracy.
- This isn't an isolated incident. You have done this so consistently over the last few days, and been wrong so consistently, that if these were the only edits you'd made you'd be raising concerns about sabotage. The wiki is neither 100% complete nor 100% accurate, and your desire to improve it is welcome. But please, just slow down a little, do a little more research and some actual testing of your theories, and post them in the correct place. Thanks. --Aliana 05:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Your Arena "tip" was useless, but that's not why I tagged it as incorrect - it was because it was, in almost every aspect, untrue.
- Unlike you, I know WHY you can't pick up Arena weapons. Your later claim that you had tested the tip, when it contained an inaccuracy that you would have discovered easily if you actually HAD, makes it clear that either you flat out lied or your concept of "testing" is so poor that it's meaningless.
- There is no guarantee that an NPC will pick up "your" special weapon. They make ONE attempt to pick up A weapon, and that's it. If theirs is nearest, which it nearly always will be, that's the one they'll try to pick up.
- Fortify Health is not the same as Restore Health. As soon as the effect wears off, the "new" health is lost and all the damage is still there. Again, this would have been blatantly obvious if you'd done any testing at all.
It's hard to continue to assume good faith with someone in the face of strong indications that they've lied to you. Even if I'm willing to stretch credulity to the point where I can accept that this was just another mistake on your part, there's no getting around the fact that what you consider "testing" simply cannot be trusted to be accurate. This is very disappointing. :(
I like what you're trying to do with your edits, but you're not doing it well enough for anyone to have any faith in anything you say. You've simply been wrong far too often, and this latest example only makes things worse regardless of whether it was deliberately deceitful or just incredibly careless.
Think about how YOU would react to your edits if someone else made them. Someone who posted false "facts" half a dozen times in a row. How much would you trust their next edit?
One final note. Don't go around accusing people of warring just because they disagree with you. Especially when you've engaged in it yourself and have been warned about it before. --Aliana 08:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- DStebbins, before replying please be aware that I have already had words with Aliana about this post. Both of you, please learn to play nicely together. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Edit Summary Etiquette
Hi Dstebbins! Thanks for your contributions to the wiki. However, edit summaries like this one are not appropriate and do not follow our guidelines for wiki etiquette. In the future, please remember to be polite and Assume Good Faith with all editors. Thanks! eshetalk 16:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Recent Edit summaries
|As mentioned on the Administrator Noticeboard and in Eric's message below, your recent edit summaries are inappropriate. Given that you've had several other informal warnings about your behaviour over the past couple of years, I'm making this one official. If there are further violations of our etiquette guidelines, an administrator may decide to block you. – Robin Hood↝talk 06:25, 18 November 2012 (GMT)|
I wanted to ask that you follow our etiquette policy when you're writing edit summaries. Calling me a troll is hardly appropriate for this discussion, and since two patrollers are contesting the relevancy of your edits, you should take them to the article's talk page for discussion. And, if you care to know, as a Patroller, I am a moderator, for lack of a better term. It's my job to do quality control on the edits added. Part of the job description. Please add your posts to the article's talk page, like I said, and if you have any further questions you wish to direct directly to me, I have a talk page link and an email link in my signature, and you can go to either one of them and we can sort it out. Or, visit the IRC, where I am right now, and we can discuss this civilly in real time. Now, I see on your talk page that etiquette is a problem you've had before, so any further etiquette violations will, unfortunately, be reported. ES(talk•email) 03:52, 18 November 2012 (GMT)
Again, behaviour and language.
This need not be lengthy, please refrain from insulting language towards other users both in edit summaries and posts, it is unacceptable. I can see you have been warned for this before, so you should refrain from any kind of post directed at any other user or you will end up banned. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 18:01, 10 April 2013 (GMT)