User talk:The Unbeholden

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

Welcome and Advice[edit]

Hi, The Unbeholden - welcome to UESPWiki. It's great to see you taking an interest in improving the site, but can I offer a few words of advice? First, using the Show preview button helps keep down the number of edits that need to be patrolled - your series edits to the vampire page made it tricky to see what was changed. Secondly, we don't need plural pages like NPCs or Bandits - our searches skip purals so you're just going to cause two pages to come up in some search results.

Other than that, thanks again for your help. 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. –RpehTCE 09:59, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"Missing" Vampire Classes[edit]

I'm perfectly aware that research is important, both before reverting a change and before making it in the first place. There is no class called "PatriarchAssassin", "PatriarchCrusader" or "PatriarchSorcerer" - the Vampire Matriarch and Patriarch use the standard Assassin, Crusader and Sorcerer classes, which are already on the article. You can research this for yourself in the Construction Set. –RpehTCE 04:13, 18 November 2008 (EST)

check the article, User:Aensland/Sandbox ... why would Aensland write it if it wasn't true? if you believe its wrong, talk to him not me. once you both agree on the whats right and whats not, change this article so it doesn't mention the 3 additional classes,Oblivion:Vampire .... The Unbeholden 04:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Aensland left that text in a sandbox presumably because it wasn't ready. You took it from there and posted it as a live article on the wiki. Aensland wasn't the one who left a rather insulting edit summary, so I took it up with you. –RpehTCE 05:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)
insulting? I only said that cause I assumed Aensland did the research. I didn't mean to be insulting. As I said if you believe the information to be wrong then take it up with the one who came up with it. And he put it in the sandbox ages ago, without any recent edits... I'm no specialist but I think that means its ready.. not to mention everyones complaining about splitting the vampire article so I went ahead and did it. I had some initiative and took the time to make a article, which deserves some respect rather then your complaining. The Unbeholden 07:27, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Your edit summary was "You really should do some research before undoing peoples changes, vamires have 3 special classes not available to players". In other words, you based your post on one line in somebody else's test page and assumed I didn't know what I was talking about. I direct you to the Assume Good Faith policy for further reading. As far as your work on the Vampires page is concerned, I already thanked you for it. –RpehTCE 07:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)
SO according to you how should I rewrite this..

"There are twenty-four varieties of Vampire, spread across the twenty-one pre-defined Classes that the Player may choose from, and three additional classes. These additional classes are : PatriarchAssassin, PatriarchSorceror, and PatriarchCrusader. With the exception of the three additional Classes (who each only have two Vampires) there are three Vampires assigned to each class. This results in a total of sixty-nine possible Vampires."

? 21:44, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Since you appear to be unaware of what other editors on the wiki do, let me point out that all of the regular contributors on the site have their own projects that are keeping them more than busy in the spare time that they voluntarily contribute to the site. If you had wanted to confirm that, you could easily have checked Rpeh's contribution history. Which shows that, in addition to his admin duties, Rpeh has basically written all of the content on the site about Shadowkey in the last few weeks -- that means nearly every single one of the articles listed here, including all of the NPC pages, all of the place pages, most of the quest pages, and all of the images, both here and here.
And that is basically why the Vampire page had not previously been revised: because everybody else has more than enough to do. Although your help trying to reorganize the vampire information is appreciated, that still doesn't mean that other editors are suddenly going to drop projects they've been working on for weeks or months just because you're interested in a single article. The Vampire page was in a sandbox because the article was unfinished: the information on the article was neither complete nor accurate. In particular, the statement about additional vampire classes is false. If you want to improve the article, the best way to accomplish that is if you do the work yourself; if you don't have the knowledge or capability to improve the article, then perhaps you should have considered that before moving the content. Harrassing other editors is definitely not going to help make those editors want to help you. --NepheleTalk 00:55, 21 November 2008 (EST)