User talk:XJDHDR

A Very Belated Welcome!

Hello XJDHDR! 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

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!).

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. Have fun! —Kitkat ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 11:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages

Hello! I'm messaging you in regards to your edits on Morrowind talk:Sirollus Saccus. Silencer and MortenOSlash were both correct: forum-like posts are discouraged (which may be a bit subjective, though arguably the discussion itself could have been added to point out something to fix if there was a typo on our end or if they thought a note could be added to the page), and at any rate it was necromancy of a ten-year-old discussion. You asked in the edit summary where these rules are listed; it's in the "talk namespaces" section of the Namespaces page, which you may want to look over.

Also a reminder that reverting other users' edits multiple times in a row may is considered edit warring; if you disagree with their edits, the best thing to do is to go to the user's talk page and start a discussion there rather than repeatedly reverting and trying to discuss it in edit summaries. Thank you for your interest in contributing to the site! ~ Alarra ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

You've conveniently ignored important details that I presented in my edit summaries.

Forum-like posts: It is indeed subjective and you've imposed your subjectivity in a way that is biased against me. Again, as per my edit summary, there is nothing I wrote that is any more forum-like that what I was replying to. You're welcome to explain exactly why someone asking how an Imperial can be over 300 years old is less forum-like than my reply where I offered the possibility that it's a descendant. You're welcome to explain how what I wrote is more forum-like than Ratwar's reply loaded with Wild Mass Guessing. I bet you won't though. And no, your attempted explanation doesn't work. Neither of those points applies to Ratwar's reply in any way, which is still present right now. And Odul did not say "Is there a typo because Sirollus can't possibly be that old" or "We need a note about how Sirollus is mentioned in a book that places him at 300 years old". No, all he said was that the book places him as 300 years old. Not to mention that this same reasoning applies to my reply. If Odul said what he said because he wants a note added to the article, my reply was because I want that info added to the note as well. So your attempted rescuing device to try explain away not applying this rule to everything I replied to doesn't work. In short, you have no basis for being selective. Either the entire conversation chain is too forum-like for this wiki's talk pages or none of it is.

Necroposting: Again, pay attention to my edit summary. Wiki pages are not forums and so, you can't necropost in the first place. Even the rule in question links to a definition of "Necropost" that clearly defines it as applying to forums. Additionally, the rule itself talks about "posts" which are more examples of terms applicable to forums, not wiki pages. Finally, if you use some Critical Thinking skills, you will realise the foundation of the problem I see. The reason some forums (at best) frown on necroposting is because it takes an old thread that has lost interest in the community and bumps it back to the top of the forum, knocking down other topics that are being engaged. None of this applies to a wiki talk page. There is no ordered lists of conversations whose order is determined by latest post. There is no mechanism that bumps recent conversations to the top of a talk page and knocks older ones down. The only notice of any kind is that the talk page itself was modified, which is the same regardless of how new the conversation is. Adding a new reply to a recent conversation or starting a new one generates the exact same data and notices as replying to an old conversation. Even the part about how likely the people who contributed to the discussion are to read my reply is not relevant because, as the other parts of that very rules page says, talk pages are for discussing possible improvements that the community might make to the article, not for satisfying the participants' curiosities. That is the place of, guess what, the forum. So overall, this rule makes zero sense. And oh wait, I just realised that I'm posting this 3 years later. Are you going to blast me for "necroposting" once again?

Finally, it's amusing that you decided to accuse me of edit warring and yet, had nothing whatsoever to say about The Silencer's mocking attitude in his edit summary. Or openly stating on his page that he only enforces rules he agrees with. Furthermore, you again need to pay attention to what I said. I wasn't starting a discussion in the edit summaries. I was explaining why The Silencer and MortenOSlash were wrong and correcting the page of their error. That's what the revert tool is for, after all. But I don't know why I have to explain all of this. All I'm doing is elaborating on what I already said in the summaries. - XJDHDR (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm this looks interesting, I don't know what is going on here, but this post totally looks like its beyond the grave to me. Like four years at least, and its fine leaving the past in the past, and not bringing it up again. Because what happened four years ago totally isn't relevant now, just wanted to say something while I'm here reading all thisTheVampKnight (talk) 05:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

You should have finished reading what I wrote before replying because every single thing in your reply has already been covered by what you're replying to. Again, this is not a forum and so the charge of "necroposting" doesn't apply. Additionally, since this is my talk page, the charge of necroposting is even less relevant here. Here's an idea: How about explaining exactly why everything I wrote is irrelevant and engage the points I made instead of hand-waving them with an Appeal to Novelty fallacy. Explain why my points would have been relevant if I wrote them shortly after Alarra's opening remark but now, those exact same points and the exact same data is not relevant merely because they're old.

Additionally, you're wrong. This is not in the past. The rules under discussion are still the same as they were at the time Alarra brought them up. Thus, those rules are just as open to criticism now as they were at the time.

Furthermore, your maths is off. Oct 2017 to Feb 2021 is 3 years, 4 months. Not "four years at least". - XJDHDR (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk pages function like forums in most respects, and regardless of that, the rule is in place that necroposts that add no new information are not allowed on our wiki, and will be removed. Your rules-lawyering about whether or not talk pages should count or not is completely irrelevant; they do here because these are the rules we put in place. You do not get to arbitrarily come along and say "it doesn't count because I disagree with your wording". Similarly, "forum-like", while subjective to some degree, still has meaning. It means that if your discussion is not directly geared towards improving the specific page you're posting to/about, but rather is more opinion-related, then it's not appropriate for the wiki and should instead be taken up on our forums or Discord. Finally, your "what-aboutism" for what other editors posted is also not relevant. We're talking about your posts right now, not anyone else's.

The way I see it, you have two choices: accept that people are trying to help you, and take what they're try to tell you on board, or continue to be belligerent and argumentative, which will ultimately produce nothing but a lot of heated discussion that likely won't accomplish anything you're hoping to. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 21:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi XJDHDR. The purpose of talk pages is to discuss the improvement of the article. Your post in 2017 was speculation and had nothing to do with the contents of the article, as we do not allow fan theories on wiki pages. In your initial reversion, you cite our guideline on "if you know the answer (or even a partial answer) to any question, feel free to answer it"—you cannot know the answer to this lore discrepancy because no explanation is ever provided.

You follow up by asking "why target only me and not the entire conversation", and this is an entirely valid question. The discussion you were replying to was from 2007, and Ratwar's comment would likely be removed today on similar grounds. While you may find some exceptions, there are relatively few such non-wiki-related discussions on the site, and most are from roughly a decade ago (as in this case) before we started to more clearly designate talk pages for wiki work only. Allowing general conversations would greatly tax our editors, while also making it harder for them to actually use the talk pages for their intended purpose.

In any case, continuing to offer further speculation on this old discussion is of no benefit to the article and belongs on the forums or elsewhere (such as our Discord). I understand you may be feeling aggrieved that your post was removed, but we began clamping down on this sort of talk page posting several years after that initial discussion was concluded. We are not going to go through and remove posts from 2007, but please do not continue to reply to such posts as it contributes nothing to the improvement of the article and the original person who asked the question is unlikely to see it.

Please consider this matter to be settled. Per RobinHood, continuing to be argumentative about this isn't going to get you anywhere and is an inappropriate response. —⁠Legoless (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Where are you two getting the idea that I don't agree with the "no forum-like content" rule? I never said this. My disagreement is with the blatant Double Standard manner that this rule is being applied. Again, if my reply was not appropriate and justifiably removed, the same standard must be applied to what I was replying to. My reply was just as geared towards improving the specific page and related to the contents of the article as what I replied to. If Ratwar's comment would be removed today on those grounds, why hasn't it? Every reply to me has simply glossed over this.

As for the new charge of adding speculation, "the smith mentioned in The Armorer's Challenge and the smith you meet in Morrowind must be the same person," is also speculation that the lore never explains. And yet, this speculation is part of the article in question. Speculation that Odul challenged by showing that this places an Imperial as over 300 years old.

If your takeaway from what I said about necroposting was "it doesn't count because I disagree with your wording", you need to re-read it because the main point I made was the underlying mechanisms behind necroposting, not your charge of "rules lawyering". The definitions were simply extra support. I'm not "rules lawyering"; I'm showing why the rule, however you interpret it, doesn't work. And if talk pages "function like forums in most respects", why are user contributions only allowed to be not forum-like? Regardless, they do not. That people can write things, usually in reply to what others wrote, and that these writings are arranged in ordered lists is pretty much the extent of a talk page's similarities with forums, more so when one places a blanket ban on forum-like conversing and especially when the underlying mechanisms behind the way this content is created are very different.

Furthermore, those talk page rules say nothing about "adding no new information" and that's not how The Silencer understood it. It was entirely about age. And rules can and do change all the time when shown to be problematic. So telling me that I'm not allowed to disagree because "those are the rules" is an inappropriate response. It's also notable that no one who has tried to justify The Silencer's revert has been able to justify it solely on the basis of necroposting but have always had to add additional justification on top of it to give an air of legitimacy. And it seems that this rule is also being applied in a Double Standard manner. On the same page, I see that Thalass last month added a reply to a 10 year old discussion and yet, is still there despite "no necroposting". So clearly, merely reviving an old discussion does not, in fact, constitute grounds for deleting someone's remark, despite the rules claiming otherwise.

As for your claims that I'm being argumentative: People Hand-Waving and Cherry Picking my replies is not a problem that I can fix. And if things become belligerent/argumentative because I called them out on this and the other person chooses to take offence, this also isn't something I can do anything about. It is impossible to tell someone that they're wrong in a way that isn't going to be interpreted as belligerent or argumentative. In fact, someone could interpret your replies as such. I was replying to Alarra specifically. I didn't ask any of you to jump in; all of you chose to do so. - XJDHDR (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)