User talk:Sports72Xtrm



Welcome, !

Hello, welcome to the Elder Scrolls Wiki! We're building a collaborative source of information for The Elder Scrolls, and we need your help! We saw you making some changes to our articles and thank you for it. We hope you choose to further this project, and we hope to see you around in the future. If you choose to stay, here are some links to help you out:

Editing policies
 * Policies and guidelines
 * Style guide
 * Media policies

Help out
 * Getting started
 * Pages needing attention
 * Image requests

User policies
 * User signatures
 * User images

FAQ
 * Help directory
 * Editing help

I hope you enjoy editing here! If you have any questions, see the help pages or ask one of our administrators.


 * --Timeoin (talk) 11:48, June 1, 2014 (UTC)

Talos page
Sport,

I don't care if it doesn't suit you. The lore itself proves '"The Talos Mistake to be wrong. There's nothing speculative'' about the removal of that line.  All of these charactacters, factions and the book prove The Talos Mistake wrong, the book is wrong and is no more but a way to make the peace last a tiny fracture longer. Just deal with it and move on.
 * Tullius
 * All Legates
 * The Great War
 * Vittoria Vici
 * The Thalmor
 * Hold Guards

So the Talos Mistake isn't only proven wrong by the Legion, it's even done so by the Thalmor.  May we find centuries of peace and prosperity with our new Thalmor friends is a line directly contradicted by both parties.

Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 22:22, October 28, 2016 (UTC)


 * Personally, I do like to provide all relevant sides of the narrative in articles, even if they are untrue; I simply include statements supporting and refuting everything to provide a balanced approach. That said, much of the time it's difficult to include that amount of information, as doing so often takes away from the topic at hand and ends up getting really off-track. My impression was that the source you gave was not particularly trustworthy, but I will take a closer look this weekend. —Atvelonis (talk) 04:15, October 29, 2016 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to look at it over the weekend. I've been rather busy lately and most likely won't have any time until Wednesday, and even then I don't know. I would recommend you speak to a patroller such as CarloV3r or The Cat Master to rewrite all of this edit war stuff in a balanced way. —Atvelonis (talk) 18:04, October 31, 2016 (UTC)

Civil War lore
Sports,

I've informed Atvel, he will, most likely take a look at your claims, and, most likely, revert them. You really need to go ahead and study the lore before posting things. Picking lines out of context doesn't aid your claims.

Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 23:18, October 29, 2016 (UTC)

Saying that I'm busy with vandalism isn't only a lie it's hilarious. Really, read up on the lore before posting your baseless assumptions, better yet, leave this place until you know what you're talking about. The wiki is meant for factual information, not the nonsense you put up there.

Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 15:53, October 30, 2016 (UTC)

Re: Skyrim Civil War page (edit-war[?])
My take


 * 1) Because the White-Gold Concordat was enforced by Imperial Law the only way the Jarls could really protest it would be to openly defy the Empire. This is what "chests of gold" were for. They were compensation so that the Imperial vassals wouldn't feel cheated by an otherwise tyrannical edict and possibly revolt.
 * 2) This is one of those things that's really up to opinion, similar to the old 'should the Byzantines really be considered the Roman Empire' disagreement. It should by noted however that in both Lord of Souls and the Infernal City, the Septim Empire is occasionally referred to as the "old Empire."
 * 3) I'm not even sure why this last point is up for debate. It's made fairly clear that the Thalmor do not wish either side to win the war. Arguing 'which side winning is worse for the Thalmor' is entirely presumptuous.


 * Dovahsebrom (talk) 20:16, November 2, 2016 (UTC)

Article editing
Hi Sports72Xtrm,

We'd really appreciate it if you could add content in fewer edits than you've been doing lately. It stacks up the Recent Changes and Wiki Activity, and makes reverting edits (if necessary) hard to do.

Thanks,

 —Carlo   ( Talk      /Contributions)    17:24, November 6, 2016 (UTC)

Improvement
Sports,

I'm happy to see your new edits, don't know what changed, but it's a good thing, keep it up.

Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 19:57, November 8, 2016 (UTC)

Re:Ulfric Stormcloak revert
The edit wasn't important enough. It's adding a pointless word. "Parasitical" describes it perfectly fine. Edits that don't add enough to be important aren't required, simple as that. I don't feel like turning this into an edit war, so I suggest we just leave it as it was before. It's a Featured Article, so it's good as it is.


 * "Whether you judge it worthy of note is irrelevant" - Incorrect. Unworthy edits can be considered edit warring. Either way, I won't pursue this any further today, as we don't need another edit war. I've brought it up to some other staff members, so it'll be settled soon enough.


 * Please, I don't get triggered by anything on the internet. I know more about editing than you, so yes, I do know when an edit is unneeded. "It makes me question the impartiality of this wiki and the abuse of power by its mods." - One edit is reverted and then suddenly mods are corrupt and the wiki is impartial? That's ridiculous. As a Staff Member, it is my job to make sure the wiki runs smoothly. Even though the mainspace is not as much of a concern to my job as to a patroller, it still remains that staff should survey the recent edits. If you think the revert was unwarranted, then you don't know about a user named Erik the Mad, who constantly reverted edits for little to no reason.


 * Well, at least you've read the editing guidelines. However, I did not violate said policy in anyway. It's mentioned all over the article already that he doesn't like the Empire and such. In addition, Ulfric Stormcloak is a Featured Article, and because of that, there's no reason to edit it unless there's a grammatical error, or something similar to that matter. Because it's an FA, it's perfect as it is. Not only is your edit not required, but it also is altering an article that does not need to be changed. For the Erik the Mad thing, I meant to say that in that age, many more edits were undone for much less of a reason than yours, so consider yourself lucky that your other edits have stayed. And no, I'm not suppressing an alternate point of view. I've done nothing of that such. I'm not a diehard Imperial like Jauffre, so pulling that card proves nothing, besides that you will say anything to get your way.

Ulfric Stormcloak Article
Hi Sports72Xtrm,

I'd like to address several things, the first being the remark you made about Ottoman Hold "going beyond his jurisdiction." Ottoman Hold is not just a Forum moderator, but also a member of the Wiki staff. This means that the content of the wiki is also his concern. Secondly, the edit you made on the article in question. I'm very sorry to tell you this, but the "inept" you added is simply redundant. The information in the article is identical, but you've added a term that adds more emotion to the article. Something which should be avoided, as the information we provide should be brought objectively. I'd like to advise you to not revert any more edits made by staff members, as they are part of the Wiki staff and know what's good for the wiki. We are not 'censoring' you, bullying you or threatening you, we are simply informing you that the edit isn't necessary.  —Carlo   ( Talk      /Contributions)    19:01, November 19, 2016 (UTC)

"Biased nonsense"
''Your proposed changes are a bunch of Imperial biased nonsense which if the mods didn't revert, I would. Talos is a Nord God, the Imperials are the one who disrespect the Moot by not acknowledging another moot after Torygg's death and interfering with the High King election process, and the Way of the Voice is just a philosophy, and can be interpreted in a myriad of ways. I'd rather this article be locked down then let you turn this article into a anti-Stormcloak hatchet job with your fake narrative.''

Imperial biased nonsense that's confirmed in the bloody game? It's not biased, nor nonsense, the Stormcloaks do not honor the Nordic customs. Talos is a deity in the Imperial Pantheon, not the Nordic Pantheon. Imperial Pantheon Nordic Pantheon

Ulfric is the one who keeps the Moot from meeting, not the Empire. "When the Moot meets we're backing Elisif, they'll do the sensible things." -Gen. Tullius "But the Moot has not yet met to name her High Queen. And they won't. Not as long as I have any say in it." -Ulfric Stormcloak "And damn the Moot! We should risk letting those milkdrinkers put Torygg's woman on the throne? She'll hand Skyrim over to the elves on a silver plate." -Ulfric Stormcloak

The Tongues stopped being a thing for eras, the Way of the Voice is the way that all Nordic Tongues accepted, hence why we never see anybody shout, excluding Ulfric, the tradition-breaker.

You want it to be locked down so that your little propaganda can remain, that makes you the biased one, not me. My edits are sources, yours aren't. Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 12:00, December 25, 2016 (UTC) Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 12:23, December 25, 2016 (UTC)

What you claim is biased nonsense.
1. The Talos Mistake is directly contradicted by Legate Rikke, Hadvar and The Great War, the Talos mistake is also written by a puppet to the Dominion, an Imperial Liaison to the Aldmeri Dominion her words mean nothing. And Talos isn't a Nordic God, no matter how you try to twist and turn it, he isn't part of the Nordic Pantheon, the Nords worship the Nine, which is the Imperial Pantheon. Read For my Gods and Emperor, Varieties of Faith in the Empire or speak to Cirroc.

2. Children of the Sky is an outdated book, hence why there are no more Tongues used for warfare. Never once has there been record of Nords ripping tongues out of their greatest enemies, at least not since the Second Era. ''The further north you go into Skyrim, the more powerful and elemental the people become, and the less they require dwellings and shelters. Wind is fundamental to Skyrim and the Nords; those that live in the far wastes always carry a wind with them.'' Unless if you claim that they mean bandits by this, you should be able to tell that the book is outdated.

Let's see, Jurgen dueling other people who knew the Voice and Ulfric dueling someone who didn't know it... Not exactly fair... Jurgen chose the 17 most powerful Tongues to prove that his Voice was the strongest, you can't prove that by fighting someone who doesn't, and couldn't, know the Voice.

The only one with biased nonsense here, are you. All of your points are easily contradicted.

Before you accuse me of being biased, I wrote a lot of things on this wiki that didn't put Ulfric or the Stormcloaks in a flattering light but I did it because it happened in the game. So? You're still biased because you try to twist words to make them suit your agenda Balgruuf was bribed! still rings in my ears. I've been here longer and I've contributed way more to this wiki than you will ever do, just stop trying. All of my edits are sourced, the vast majority of yours are not, some food for thought. Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 10:36, December 26, 2016 (UTC)

Re:What is the Problem
I'm not doing anything like that, you added the template to it. Which adds the 'Good Article' category and the GA icon to it. It isn't up to you to decide whether an article is a good article or not. As for the infoboxes, leave it be for now. I'm working on it. Don't revert any of Blademasters edit concering infoboxes anymore. —CarloV3r (talk) 13:50, December 26, 2016 (UTC)

Markarth Incident
Cut the nonsense, Sports.

Cedran states that the Empire allowed it after Ulfric retook the Reach. The Empire was entirely unrelated to the dealings between Hrolfdir, his family, and Ulfric. Cut the nonsense or I'll bring an admin into this.

Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 14:42, December 28, 2016 (UTC)