User talk:Temple-Zero

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome Temple-Zero[edit]

Hello Temple-Zero! Welcome to the wiki. i am assuming that you're 24.31.156.165, so I'll spare you the "New User" links. If you need any help or advice, please ask one of our mentors. Enjoy! --BenouldTC 20:54, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

well, I'm utterly, painfully ignorant of wiki/html format, so if any of that was included in the New User stuff, it would be helpful.
Hehe, ok, most things are found under Help:Contents, which is always accessible on the left bar, under general. One thing is typing four tildes, ~~~~ at the end of your message, to sign your posts on Talk pages. Let me know if you have any questions, and try to keep your summaries PG13 and civil ;) --BenouldTC 21:05, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
Hey, here's another cool thing about wikis--right next to the save changes button is a button to preview changes. That way, you know if your signature worked or not, or if something odd happened in the formatting. Using the preview button saves us from having to patroll each individual edit you make to a page. And by the way, welcome, dear. I have a feeling I'm going to get along with you, at least from your edit summaries--"deleting with extreme prejudice" shows a healthy sense of humor. --Somercy 21:27, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Or extreme crusading snarkiness Temple-Zero 21:28, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Which is also cool, as long as it's directed at idiots, and not at me. --Somercy 21:30, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Wiki voodoo[edit]

What might be helpful (it was to me) is having a text edit open with the most-used codes, so you can just copy+paste them in. For example:

  • Reference in text: [1]
  • Reference summary at the end of a page:

References[edit]

  1. ^ The Annotated Anuad

and so on. Open it up in Edit to see the underlying code. Hope that helps a little, --BenouldTC 04:02, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

Civility[edit]

I realize that you are trying to make many much-needed improvements to the site. However, your talk page comments and edit summaries continue to border on the inappropriate. Discussions should be used to make constructive criticism about the articles. In that context, negative comments about articles are often necessary. However, crossing the line to making negative comments about other editors is not acceptable. There is no reason to denigrate other editors, and it is completely counterproductive to the overall goal of trying to work together to improve the site's articles. For example, there is no reason to make comments with implications about other people's intelligence; labeling any of the site's contributors as idiots is unnecessary and insulting. In future, could you please restrict your comments to criticism of articles and desist from jumping to false conclusions about other editors on the site? Thank you. --NepheleTalk 23:32, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

You are aware I was referring to the quest trigger that advances the journal entry if your character's Intelligence attribute is above 60, right? — Unsigned comment by Temple-Zero (talkcontribs) on 27 July 2008
Since I have not yet finished that quest (and I avoid reading quest pages for quests I haven't finished), no, I didn't know. My apologies for jumping to incorrect conclusions, especially since that is exactly what I'm asking you not to do. If another editor had made the comment, I probably would have looked a bit harder for alternative explanations. But the fact is that if an editor has clearly made negative comments in the past, it's easy to assume the worst when reading any comments. Also, even if one of my examples was mistaken, that does not invalidate the overall message, which was prompted by a recurring pattern in your edits, not just a single instance. --NepheleTalk 00:30, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

It seems Nephele's advice hasn't sunk in. Edits such as this and this (the latter by your anonymous alter-ego) are simply unacceptable. Please read our pages on Consensus and Good Faith. A wiki is about cooperation and so far your attitude towards cooperation seems to be somewhat lacking. You obviously have a good depth of knowledge about ES lore and I'm sure the site can benefit from your input, but at the moment you're just replacing one set of unsourced comments with another set of unsourced comments and doing so in a very offensive manner. I hope you will listen to this advice and start working with the other site members rather than against them. –RpehTCE 03:57, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Consensus and good faith. I'm so happy you brought that up. You seem to be under the impression that my comments are inspired by some sort of random malevolence. Not true. You want me to start working with other editors and to assume good faith. Then consider that my frustration stems from no one being inclined to work with me. Truth, as someone surely brought up somewhere around here, is a slippery prey in ES lore. It requires the consensus in order to be found. It requires the community, but uesp seems to have insulated itself rather throughly from any effective community on this matter, unless some large portion of the site has escaped my notice. So when I come here and write about the things that are common knowledge to the lore community, verified and discussed with the developers who authored the concepts, it does not bother me when I am met with resistance. No, it bothers me when my contributions are stonewalled and no effort is made to open the vital discussion that is the only thing that can hammer these out. I am dealt with dismissively, then the editors who I have supposedly offended so deeply (names, please) disappear behind absurd standards of politeness designed for the chronically thin-skinned in excess of the sugary official forums. UESP is not a brainstorming session for random ideas, and personal theories should not be given the sanctuary of holy unverifiable opinion. What you call support I call a lip-service link. Argument is the only support. A seventh-grade teacher will tell you that a quote or citation never stands alone. This inspired my comment in the Talos mini-article, which were not personal attacks, and I expect the editor to not collapse into a whimpering lob of jelly at their cruelty.
Of course, all this makes me sound bitter and unwelcomed, which is not entirely just considering the help I have received with those contributions not assailed by pedantry. There are also cases of rudeness you have cited that have less to do with lore theory. I love case-by-case, don't you? Lurlock, I rigorously defend my right of reply in this case:
He may not be the only one, but he seems to be the only one whose name has ever been given, based just on a quick search of the term on the site. At any rate, if it doesn't redirect here, where would you suggest that it should point, since this is the only Underking we really know anything about? (Not to mention the one most likely to be searched for by visitors to the site, given his prominent role in Daggerfall.
You most likely meant no offense, but as grounds for contesting my expansion of the article, I found it officious and condescending. Not so much because of your tone but because of the position from which you were speaking while being incorrect in almost every syllable.
Oh, you searched UESP for information on lore? And found nothing? Oh then it must be right!
That was my sarcasm. I could be inspired into some more concerning your parenthesis, which seems to advocate telling the simplified, incorrect story for the sake of cheap gameplay hints.
To sum up, cooperation is mutual. Adding hyperlinks to articles I expand is much appreciated, but not really the issue. Cooperation is discussion. When I meet resistance but not negotiation, it is not dissent but dismissiveness, and it is hard to assume good faith. The token gesture of providing a source no one will read or properly apply sticks in my throat. Brow-beating seems to work just as well, and I see no difference between vociferous, counterproductive protest and the editor's unilateral pen as a means of resolving conflict. Still waiting in the talk page. Temple-Zero 09:50, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
I'm sorry, but calling something "common knowledge" because it's been agreed upon by fans in another forum isn't enough, especially if you can't point to such discussions in order to back up your statements. You refer to other people's ideas as "crackpot theories", but how are we to know that you aren't a crackpot yourself? I'm not saying you are, but lacking any sources for your statements, anything you write is no better than anything else written without sources. This is why linking is so essential. Is the lore content currently on our pages incorrect? Probably a lot of it is, though it's hard to tell when it's unsourced. It's equally hard to tell if your contributions are any better, for the same reason. Additionally, when you're talking about certain aspects of lore, there are multiple theories within the lore itself, many of which conflict. If this is the case, it is our responsibility as an encyclopedic source for all lore in the game to represent ALL viewpoints seen within the games, even when they are believed to be incorrect. Deleting content because it is superceded by other versions of the story is counterproductive. Even if one version of the story is wrong, this does not mean that we should cover up or remove all mention of this theory, as it is still believed by a large number of people within the games, and thus still deserves mention, even if this mention is coupled with a refutal.
We're aware that the lore content is lacking, but not many people on the site have the expertise to fix it. Your help is appreciated, but your attitude is not. You complain of hostility, but since your very first edit you have brought nothing but hostility with you, and it hurts your credibility to be honest. Is it possible for you to contribute without insulting every editor on the site in the process? Can you possibly discuss issues before making widespread and unverified changes to the site? The spirit of a wiki is cooperation, and you have shown little willingness to cooperate with other editors. --TheRealLurlock Talk 10:53, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
I think there is a clash of styles here, as well as principles. As I see it, the strength of the UESP so far is Quests and game mechanics, and our principle there is that things have to be verifiable. The construction set followed by in-game observation set the standards whether something is true or not. As we all agree, lore is a different animal, with many different angles, fragments, different "truths" depending on the agenda of a book, see the "Battle of Red Mountain" for example. You're right, UESP is a bit insular, as Rpeh said, there aren't many editors well-versed in lore, or involved in the discussions Lore Forum, and as Lurlock says, there are things in our Tamriel/Lore name-space that are iffy. So you might meet some resistance, just because the material is less verifiable, and you're not giving ways for people to add to their knowledge. I think if you make an effort to document more (and you are at least providing hints on sources in summaries now), point to discussions on lore forums, TIL and such, you'll find a body of editors that is willing to make Lore much better. I know I am reading more sources now because of your edits and the focus this brings to the Lore part of the wiki. --BenouldTC 12:18, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Edit: Do you participate on the TES Lore forum, what is your handle there, if I may ask? ... As a patroller, I do read those links, and verify sources, and it seems that at least some editors do the same, see Morrowind_talk:House_Hlaalu#Source as an example.)--BenouldTC 12:40, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Lurlock, I'm having a hard time distinguishing your latest post from its predecessor, as it just elaborates on points that I had already directly responded to. If you don't have any thoughts on the need for reaching a happy medium of citation and discussion in the lore articles (Benould shows that he throroughly understands the circumstances that lead to this), then I can't really see where we're supposed to go from here. I would also appreciate the names of a few editors who have been insulted by my comments, or that they speak up.

I can't drastically edit articles without citation any more than this site can rely on only hard evidence and remain comprehensive (or even adequate) in regard to lore, or any more than you can attempt to regulate the process by rule of thumb. You can't know that I'm not a crackpot for the very same reason that you can't know if any of the lore is 'true.' Remember that there is no truth, only argument, and no canon, only knowledge. And all knowledge is valid. It is up to the editors (not, I think, to you alone) to decide whether you want all available Elder Scrolls knowledge present for public appraisal on this site. How corporate you make the disclaimers, I don't care. Temple-Zero 12:30, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

This is the last unofficial warning I will give you. If you make any more comments on articles or in edit summaries such as you did here you will receive an official warning. –RpehTCE 13:10, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
In which case I am entitled to your explanation as to how that was an inappropriate comment, and not a valid response to an unjustified deletion because an impromptu suggestion for source-justification (essentially an invitation to discuss the matter face-to-face in the talk pages) was not helpful to you, through no fault of my own. I am bound to Assume Good Faith, so I chose to assume that you were unable to make the connection in terms rather than assume that you were jumping the gun and deleting my edit without proper procedure, out of spite. Temple-Zero 13:15, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
It was a personal attack. Whether or not you think I know anything about site lore, it is unacceptable to make that kind of comment. In this case, I went to TIL, made the search you suggested and found nothing - nothing to support your previous edit so it was an entirely justified deletion. It would be more help, of course, if you had linked directly to any article that supported your view rather than suggesting a search that doesn't work. Please will you read the links that you were given by Benould - it will greatly improve the utility of your contributions. –RpehTCE 13:20, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

The suggested search was an extra source, not the key text. The Words of Clan Mother Ahnissi is already linked to in the article. I am assuming this, because if it is not the case, then that paragraph I added to is similarly unsupported.Temple-Zero 13:23, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Warning[edit]

Stop hand.png Despite several unofficial warnings you continue to make personal comments about other editors, the latest example being here. As a result, this is now an official warning as sanctioned in the Blocking Policy. If you continue to make attacks of this nature, this account will be blocked from editing. –RpehTCE 16:17, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

I reject this warning because it has been issued by the admin who was directly and primarily involved in the case in question. I request that it be removed so that the situation can be reviewed by those users NOT emotionally involved in this conflict of interest. If blocked, I will appeal the block. I will accept both a warning and a block if it is issued by an editor other than Rpeh. Temple-Zero 16:21, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

I issued the warning in response to the latest of a series of attacks on other edits, not myself. You have had unofficial warnings from Nephele and Lurlock in addition to myself so there is only one currently-active admin who isn't already involved. As far as rejecting warnings goes - you don't get to do that. The blocking policy makes it clear how the process works, and you are of course free to appeal any block. –RpehTCE 16:32, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

I can reject warnings because it is my business whether I get blocked or not. Would "ignore" better suit your preferences of diction, mayhap? Temple-Zero 16:38, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Lunar companion?[edit]

TZ, seems like you have a like-minded scholar Lunar lattice, unless that is you ;) --BenouldTC 22:43, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

P

Yes, that's me.

In Defense of this user[edit]

Hello, I am Sload. If you aren't familiar with my name I am an FSG contributor, the head of lore for the Tamriel Rebuilt project, and the black sheep of sorts of the inner lore community. Though these titles may not mean much to you, I am intimately familiar with the lore and its development. Michael Kirkbride owes me a story, for example, which when completed will surely be drilled for sources to add to this website.

What I see here is a situation very much akin to what we see at Wikipedia when a PhD unfamiliar with the process arrives. Who do they think they are, asking me for sources, angrily wonders one of the leading experts on Pre-Columbian art, after his corrections to "Olmec were-jaguar" are removed with the summary "deleted original research." He acts cocky, they act derisive, everyone walks away with bad feelings and no progress is actually made.

I will assure you on my life that this user is an expert on subjects within TES lore, and that every edit he has made has been accurate to a t. If you could please refrain from reverting his contributions, but instead follow them with a liberal application of whatever your equivelent of the {{fact}} tag is, it would probably do much to ease the conflict.

Similarly, it would be equally beneficial for this user to stop being a dick. Paw-prints, your behavior is unacceptable. You are an unknown new member in a foreign community, you do not have the right to talk down to them and treat them with any sort of disrespect. Grow up, for god's sake.

UESP is not currently recognized as a valid reference in lore discussions. I believe that paw-prints can change this if you will only let him. I implore all parties involved not to let this chance to create a wonderful encyclopedia of lore slip through their fingers.

One final note: on the issue of canon, paw-prints represents the generally accepted view, the idea that Bethesda is the source of canon died in 2006, and even the most contrary and heterodox of lore enthusiasts accept anything with Michael Kirkbride's involvement as a canon source. If you wish to accurately reflect the current state of lore, TIL's Obscure Texts and the Trial of Vivec both must be accepted. Also, Rpeh's suggestion that TIL is "unsourced" is patently absurd; TIL is an archive of source texts, with the exception of certain compendiums, such as the Timeline, which are sourced, and the FSG, which is mostly garbage.

Also, we are going to have to ask that he change his name. Temple-Zero is not his name to use, and some respect for our organization would have been appreciated. Its my understanding that this can be fixed, and I hope vehemently that it shall. Sload 23:46, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, but I don't immediately see what the problem is with this username. We're generally pretty permissive about usernames, using Wikipedia's policy on Inappropriate usernames as the basis for what we consider acceptable. Is there another person who is already well-known as Temple-Zero in the community? If so, some details would be helpful. Or is there some other reason behind this request? --NepheleTalk 01:37, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
Temple Zero is Paw-Prints-in-the-mud? If so then that changes things a little. I concur with Sload then, Paw-prints is well versed in ES lore. Besides Proweler, he currently knows probably more about ES lore then any other ES fan.
I also agree with Sload when he says that this might be a great opportunity for UESP to improve it's lore section and thus make it a lore site comparable to TIL. On the other hand, one could also argue that the place to go for ES lore is and will always be TIL, while UESP is and has always been the place to go if you need gameplay hints.
On the subject of canon: The more generally accepted view on both the ES lore forum and TIl is indeed that Mk's texts are canon. Oblivion left many plotholes in terms of lore. Famous examples are the Cyrodiilic jungle that was replaced in TES:IV with a normal forest and the question as to why the daedra didn't invade in the second era, when there was no emperor around to light the Dragonfires. Because many lorefans/lore-khans were unhappy with these plotholes MK has tried to fix some of these. As a result of this, whenever something is being discussed on the forums "MK lore" takes precedence over in-game ES lore.
The Trial of Vivec is a different matter. I believe it is only canon, because a lot of devs took part of it. I also recall MK saying that it will officially become part of the Canon in the near future.
If the discussion on what is and what is not canon cannot be easliy decided then it might be an idea for UESP to make use of a system of canonicity levels like the Star Wars Franchise uses.
See here for an example: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon#Canon_in_the_Holocron_continuity_database
Apophis2412 03:54, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
That shows open-mindedness, Apophis, and might answer for a wiki. But it rankles a little, what with my intense dislike for the entire debate and the word that inspired it, right down to its pronunciation. I'd rather it was said as 'canaan' because that would be more fitting, what with the fanatical devotion- err, nevermind. At least one thing needs to happen. The site needs to realize that the obscure texts inform our thinking in crucial ways, as do impromptu developer posts on the forums. Whether these are 'source texts' is up to debate, but inarguably there would be almost no lore community without them. Game texts are insufficient material to understand Nirn with. As soon as the topic turns even the slightest bit esoteric, we enter a region where the obscure texts are our bread and butter, because we would know just a hairbreadth's more than NOTHING without them. Likewise, we would know a great deal less without the community that discussed the texts and was able to draw abstract conclusions, discovering things that are not explicitly stated, but deliberately hidden. I think the majority of you accept the validity of hard-won expertise. The question is just how to source it, which should prove a much simpler matter to resolve than all this sticky, subjective theory.Temple-Zero 10:38, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
In defense of this user, hes not always wrong. The problem is that he starts with his feet on the ground and ends up in the middle of noehere. Stuff from books + stuff from devs + made up stuff is not what this site is for. Keep that crap on the forums where it belong. Youve been here only for two weeks or so and have annoyed almost everybody who was here a long time before you. As Sload said: "You are an unknown new member in a foreign community, you do not have the right to talk down to them and treat them with any sort of disrespect. Grow up, for god's sake." Learn from that. YOu think your a big guy but your really a 14 year old kid and your nothing. You need to go away back to the forums. You want to quote obscure texts? Do it there. Keep it off this site. Antares 11:15, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
Since I'm a newbie 14 year old (for the record, I'm flaming at a college level compared to you) I should be impressed by your comments, since you are obviously so threatened by my preference for lore that you think I'm the antichrist. I'd say that's pretty good for two week's work (in a twisted sort of way) but I think I remember you from somewhere. Can't be certain though, you appear to have been banned from ESF or something. Or there is, at least, an Antares on my mental s**t-list for members who make really bad posts. And not the 'I don't like Morrowind' kind, either. But this is neither here nor there, take it outside. Maybe to the forums where I supposedly belong.Temple-Zero 11:24, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
"But this is neither here nor there, take it outside." I second that idea, this isn't the place for flamewars. --BenouldTC 11:43, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
To use forum-speak, I would like to officially declare this thread locked. What any editors did or did not do on any other websites or forums is not directly relevant here. Your personal opinions of other editors based on interactions from other websites are completely irrelevant. Even your personal opinions of editors' contributions on UESP are really not details that should be posted on wiki pages.
The purpose of the wiki is to improve the wiki's content, so discussions should be focussed on that purpose: constructive suggestions on how to improve articles. On those occasions when an editor's behaviour requires comment on his/her talk page, it's best to leave that to experienced UESP editors -- editors who are familiar with wiki culture and with UESP's practices in particular. If you feel that a problem has been overlooked, contacting an admin in private (email, IRC, etc.) is far more appropriate than a public post, especially in an already-tense situation such as this one.
Could everyone please try to keep this in mind and stop posting personal opinions of other editors? Although I can't truly lock this thread (or at least doing so would violate several wiki guidelines), I can say that any further posts made to this discussion will be very unwelcome. --NepheleTalk 13:13, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Imperial Library[edit]

Hi, I saw your post on the Imperial Library. What's your problem with the administration? As administrator of a Star wars-related wiki and an average user on many others, I can help you resolve the conflict of canon-ness (which we get all the time) or whatever. First, I must remind you to be polite and to respect the present policies of this wiki. If you rather discuss this at the Imperial Library's Storyboard, go ahead. I'm the user Dagoth Uberleet at the Storyboard. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk)/(Contribs) 16:06, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, but you can only make yourself look bad. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk)/(Contribs) 12:11, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Contested Edits[edit]

Could you postpone making edits such as this until there's a consensus on the subject of what is and isn't appropriate for sources in Lore? Your edit replaced some sourced text with an unsourced theory that receives little in-game backing. I'm not starting another argument here - I'm just asking that you wait until the existing one is resolved. Thanks. –RpehTCE 03:15, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

The decision to regard both theories on Nedic origin as valid was made months ago, I thought, and I wrote that sentence with ambiguity in mind. It receives plenty of in-game backing, the latest being the descriptions of First Era Cyrodiil in KotN dev confirmation. But the style guide and original research guidelines prevent this from being sourced completely.Temple-Zero 08:52, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
Yes it was, but I can only see one POV in that edit - the indigenous theory one. Never mind. Let's wait and see the outcome of the main debate. –RpehTCE 09:05, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
Actually, that specific sentence can be entirely justified by the Song of Pelinal, and contradicts no other source, because no other source covers the subject in any detail to speak of. If only the Indigenous Theory seems to fit, it is is because the Indigenous Theory is true and Out-of-Atmora is false. That simple, really. This is TZ, btw. 24.97.239.147 10:46, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Warning[edit]

Stop hand.png Please refrain from your provocative and extremely cynical approach to the administrators of this site, disrupting its maintenance and treating the wiki as a forum. Here a few examples of the behaviour I'm referring to:
  • In this case, your edit is not only considered to be vandalism (as the edit is still in the history even though it was reverted minutes later), but also increases the chance on an edit conflict. Pages that are vandalized are usually restored after a very short period. If you make such an edit in that period, it will likely disrupt the editor reverting the vandalism. Also, the message you left is not considered to be friendly at all. Next time, please consider restoring the article yourself, or ignoring it.
  • Here, your comment cannot be classified as anything other than an irrelevant forum post. Its cynicism and irrelevance disrupt a major discussion.
  • Here, you accuse an administrator of bias. If you have such issues with an administrator, take it up with another administrator, or the person in question him/herself. Your edit summary is clearly provocative and disrupts the administrator's work. The process of electing an Administrators takes objectiveness into account (as can be seen here). Constantly accusing an administrator of bias not only leaves a foul taste, but disrupts that administrator objectiveness.

--Timenn < talk > 03:00, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Warning[edit]

Stop hand.png You're latest comment on UESPWiki talk:Lore is a clear attack not only on Timenn, but on all the site's administrators in general. This is a clear breach of the rules layed out here.
After countless unofficial and three official warnings you continue to treat the site as a playground, as can be seen here, and insult the other editors, as can be seen in your latest post here.
Continuing to abuse your editing privileges and ignore official warnings will result in you being blocked from editing the UESP. - Game LordTalk|Contribs 12:29, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

The Last Chance[edit]

In the light of Game Lord's latest warning I feel I should make a few things clear.

The post for which you were warning could easily have led to you being blocked. For the record, I was asked twice on IRC if I was going to block you (another user asked later through email). The Blocking policy is quite clear - you could have been blocked. I refrained because I genuinely want to see you make a useful contribution to this site.

The trouble is... you don't seem inclined to do so. On another site you have gloated about fighting with admins, and your latest boast is that you have added materiel surreptitiously despite the ongoing debate. You then insult a well-respected user who had previously called you out on your actions.

As for content, I tried to ask a serious question and you responded with what can only be described as a joke post. Your later answer was more relevant, but still didn't answer the question. The "official" term seems to be "Miracle of Peace" and "Warp in the West" is a popular name for it. Your answer is "This is what I think" and ignores anything else related to the subject.

Your problem seems to be that you treat this site as if it were a forum, and so resent any authority. Whether or not you agree, this site has Policies and Guidelines that must be followed. You seem to delight in ignoring them.

My reason for posting this is to make you aware just how much latitude you have received. It could quite easily be argued that all the site admins are in violation of policy for not having blocked you before now.

This is your last chance. I would love to see you become a productive editor, but you have do follow our rules. Next time you breach our policies, you will be blocked. I honestly hope that doesn't happen.

RpehTCE 15:55, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

3RD PGE[edit]

In response to your question you left me, yes, the American publication does contain those errors. It is stated on the article's discussion page, and the American version is used in the wiki. I don't know how the errors got into the copy; most likely; it was printed and released in America, an employee or someone else discovered the errors, Bethesda rewrote the PGE, and re-printed it for the British version. As for the TIL version, it must either correct the typos for ease of reading or it uses the corrected British version.--penguin0719TalkContribs 23 October, 2008

See this comment left by Nephele. --GuildKnightTalk2me 22:47, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

You[edit]

Oh, it was you >.> Go figure. This discussion is over now. DaedryonTCE 21:12, 22 December 2008 (EST)

EDIT: Nevermind, I mistook you for the guy who was personally attacking you awhile ago. I'm a dumbass >.> DaedryonTCE 21:13, 22 December 2008 (EST)

New Articles[edit]

Thanks for all the new pages. For future reference, if you want to flag an article as a stub, you just have to add {{stub}} to it. Also, to create a redirect, you just have to use #redirect [[article]]. Hope that helps. –RpehTCE 03:01, 23 December 2008 (EST)


Choco chip cookie.png
You have been given a cookie!

Your dedication and diligence to the wiki has not gone unnoticed. A user has seen the progress you've made, and has given you a cookie because of it. Good work! The user had the following to say:

In fact, have a cookie: our new articles have cleared a lot of red links away. Hopefully in the New Year we'll be able to work together towards finding a way of integrating all ES-related material in a way that makes sense to both gamers and lore khans. –RpehTCE 14:48, 30 December 2008 (EST)
I am also in need of improved web browser cookies that keep me logged in after each visit. I keep forgetting and making IP edits. (hehe)Temple-Zero 21:47, 30 December 2008 (EST)
Just click on the "Remember my login on this computer" checkbox when you login. It works on every browser I use (IE, FF, Safari). --NepheleTalk 21:16, 3 January 2009 (EST)
I'd been doing that, but it took about a week for it to "stick." Go figure :P Temple-Zero 21:21, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Merry New Years![edit]

(\ /)
(°_o) <(HERRRRPA DERPP!)
(u u)
(u u)o

Merry New Years from the brain damaged bunny! DaedryonTCE 01:11, 1 January 2009 (EST)

References[edit]

Take a look at this. I changed your references to use the cite extension as requested in your previous edit summary and you should be able to get the hang of it by looking at the diff. Feel free to move the inserts to a better place if you don't like where I put 'em.

Thanks for leaving the Trials of St Alessia this time. I know it's Imperial propaganda, but I think it's important to use references like that where they exist since they'd certainly be part of the "knowledge" of ordinary people. Having said that, there's probably a way of ordering things so that the "true" version is presented as that along with a section describing the propaganda version and calling it that. –RpehTCE 03:04, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks. I got the footnotes to show up, but the noinclude and abbreviation codes were doing some things I didn't expect. By the way, I didn't mean to remove the Amulet of Kings reference entirely, I just didn't want to quote it verbatim or paraphrase in the article. It still corroborates other sources in a way if you read it with a grain of salt.Temple-Zero 10:19, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Unofficial information[edit]

Can you please not add unofficial information to articles as you did to Lore:Heart of Lorkhan (Note, I probably won't be able to respond to any of your responses sine I'm semi-retired from UESP). --Michaeldsuarez (Talk)/(Contribs) 23:28, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Read the noticeboard links and talk to Rpeh.Temple-Zero 23:31, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Well, that's the worst policy change I've ever seen, but I guess I could get over it. For the Lore:Heart of Lorkhan article, can you please list the Nu-Mantia Intercept as a source. Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk)/(Contribs) 23:41, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Nevermind, I added the sources myself. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 00:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)
There is a lot of stuff I mean to get around to soon, but UESP has been unworkably slow. It's better today, so I should be able to fix some things.Temple-Zero 16:17, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Unofficial Lore

A few points here...
  • Yes, the site has been slow recently. I've posted on Daveh's talk page to see if he can sort that out.
  • I've created a template to provide a standard note on OOG articles - see the post here.
  • The new article on "Unofficial Lore" is good. I know Ratwar will be grinding his teeth at the thought of a new General-space article though, so I'm going to suggest a reworking and a move to Lore:Sources, with specific guidance on what's in-game, what's out-of-game and what's unacceptable. The new template should then be modified to include a link to the new page.
Thoughts? –RpehTCE 17:09, 9 February 2009 (EST)
Lore makes more sense; sounds good. I'll look over the article again for wording and put some links in (can't seem to figure out a hyperlink to TIL though). The exact template wording shouldn't matter too much as long as it links to a frank explanation.Temple-Zero 18:46, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Grouped Footnotes[edit]

As part of the recent upgrade, Nephele installed the latest version of the Cite extension. This means we can now put footnotes in groups as you requested a while back. Take a look at my sandbox to see how it works and let me know what you think... –RpehTCE 14:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Is there something I could search to find the (very short) list of pages that include OOG footnotes?Temple-Zero 00:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Try this. There must be more than that though. –RpehTCE 07:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)