Welcome, Blademaster Jauffre!

Skyrim Logo Large.png

Hello Blademaster Jauffre, 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:



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

--Cheatcodechamp (talk) 16:18, August 15, 2015 (UTC)
Icon-Archive.png
Archives

Happy New Years![edit source]

I wish you a very Happy New Year! Please do check the following post and tell me what you think![1]

  Aquila2002 * Talk? * Chat?

Re: Moot[edit source]

So this time of year UTC+1 (Netherlands) is 6 hours ahead of US Eastern, where the moot time is derived. Since the moot starts at 4 PM EST, I believe it would be 10 PM in Dutch time. I think sometimes it's a little earlier/later depending on DST, but it's always centered around 4 PM US Eastern. —Atvelonis (talk) 18:53, January 4, 2018 (UTC)

Legends Stormcloaks[edit source]

Do you really think that there needs to be a "Legends: Stormcloaks" category? --DreamSoulshine (talk) 16:49, January 8, 2018 (UTC)

Re:Card Art[edit source]

I'm taking card arts from here: https://www.artstation.com/nuarestudio/albums/693220
They don't have Mechanical Heart card art released, sorry. --DreamSoulshine (talk) 17:30, January 13, 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I just uploaded the card art you requested. --Rupuzioks (talk) 18:51, January 13, 2018 (UTC)
If you want other card arts just let me know. --Rupuzioks (talk) 19:23, January 13, 2018 (UTC)
No problem, it is done. --Rupuzioks (talk) 07:42, January 20, 2018 (UTC)
Done. :) --Rupuzioks (talk) 16:10, January 29, 2018 (UTC)

Lore (Page)[edit source]

Yes I think that you can add the quote. Despite not being a quote about lore itself I think it suits the page. After all, lore is the equivalent of history for games.Amulet of Kings (talk) 20:10, January 14, 2018 (UTC)

Re: Stormcloaks and/or Civil War page[edit source]

I set the pages to semi-protected for the next week. I think that should be enough time to get whatever info from Legends you want written up. —Atvelonis (talk) 22:21, January 20, 2018 (UTC)

Re: Season Unending[edit source]

The way Arngeir's dialogue is formatted right now is adequate, although it should be made more clear that the "Season Unending (Blades)" section is in fact a precursor to the dialogue within the "Neutral" collapsible table. For consistency it wouldn't hurt to give each of those their own collapsible table like you see above.

If the ending is the only thing that differs between factions for the individual character dialogue, you could use H3 headers to display that. So while the beginning parts would just be under normal collapsible tables (under the "Conversations" H2 header? Or perhaps make an H3 header noting that it's the introductory/middle dialogue being shown), there would be however many H3 headers for each faction below that (one per faction).

I hope that was coherent: I still haven't gotten around to playing through that quest yet (not sure I ever will, at this rate!) so I can only be so useful to you here. Take my suggestions into consideration, play around with it, and see what works: if you end up doing something else entirely that works better, by all means go with that instead. —Atvelonis (talk) 22:09, February 1, 2018 (UTC)

Image of Titus Mede I[edit source]

The article of Titus Mede I is missing an image. I recall you made a post with an image from TES legends, Hail the Empire has it as profile image. Is the man portrayed in it Titus Mede I?Amulet of Kings (talk) 20:11, February 7, 2018 (UTC)

Reply[edit source]

Hey Jauffre, thanks for fixing the mistakes on referencing and elsewhere on the Dominion Military page. If you have the time and want to help then your help would be more than appreciated. I really want to give the Dominion Military a quality page like the Legion's, maybe someday even the Ebonheart Pact, Daggerfall Covenant, and various other military powers. It's a long term plan that I hope will bring me back to editing after all that ESO grinding. Anyways, if you want to contact me and talk about the Dominion Military page, you can do so by using my talk page (obviously) or even that post I made for helping people with editing a while back. Thanks again! Hail the Empire (talk) 00:02, February 26, 2018 (UTC)

Saenus Lusius image[edit source]

Hello, sorry about that, I didn't check the details of the armor he is wearing, but now I see some differences. I updated the image in the quest article. --Rupuzioks (talk) 12:33, February 28, 2018 (UTC)

Rexus image[edit source]

Hey Jauffre, how do you know that the Rexus image is modded? If only minor texture details are different from what appears for you in-game then it is probably just due to lower graphical settings on the uploader's game. —Atvelonis (talk) 17:23, March 24, 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even notice that, nice catch. I gave it a look in-game right now and the silver squares don't seem to be there. —Atvelonis (talk) 18:10, March 24, 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot[edit source]

Another thread dead Just wanted to thank you so much for murdering another one of the civil war threads. Seriously dude, there is an option to just ignore us eeevil blasphemers if you want to. You don't have to ruin every war thread for us. LordOswin (talk) 00:56, March 25, 2018 (UTC)

Re: Prince of Bargains[edit source]

That would be Seryn during the quest "Divine Intervention" with the quote, "Skaafin! They serve the Prince of Bargains. Keep them busy while I finish this." We don't have all of her dialogue fully documented yet though, or even a walkthrough of that quest. —Atvelonis (talk) 01:19, March 30, 2018 (UTC)

Martin Septim[edit source]

Noticed you've been adding dialogue to each of Martin's interactions. Just wondering if you'd need any help gathering the dialogue? I'll be able to do so in a week's time from today, if that's fine with you, just in case if you are busy with other Articles, and such. Cheers!   Aquila2002 * Talk? * Chat?

Awesome. I'll get started in a week when I return to London. Gives me an excuse to play on my PS3. I can have a tendency to forget things, so if I don't start adding stuff 'till the end of next week, please do notify me. Cheers! NOTE: I may not be able to actually help you out with that dialogue. It'll be the busiest month of my life now, and so i'm sorry that I have to retract that. However, I do believe you should be able to gather that relatively easily by yourself, especially if you are following through with the Main Quest yourself.   Aquila2002 * Talk? * Chat?

Updated with new information[edit source]

Sorry, I almost never use the wiki, and I didn't see your message, until recently. As for Vile being referred to as the Prince of Bargains, I think one of the editors already added in the reference.



Prince of Pacts (talk) 03:15, May 8, 2018 (UTC)

Rollback substitute[edit source]

Per your edit here, this can normally only be done through the rollback tool, which is something that patrollers/admins have. However, if you need to revert multiple edits at once in the future, you can go to the history page, click on the date of the edit before the first vandalism edit, edit that page and copy the content (Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C), then return to the current version of the page and paste it. This takes a little longer but it works. —Atvelonis (talk) 01:52, May 16, 2018 (UTC)

Septim Empire[edit source]

Hi Jauffre, good work on the Septim Empire page the other day, but it looks like a couple references are broken. I'm not sure exactly what they refer to, but hopefully you remember? —Atvelonis (talk) 17:25, August 8, 2018 (UTC)

Quote template[edit source]

Hi Jauffre, the quote template shouldn't be used in the middle of a section like this. If it needs to be there it can go in a blockquote, but there's also no reason you can't just italicize it and write it in-line. Generally this is preferable for shorter quotes unless there is a specific reason to emphasize them. —Atvelonis (talk) 15:27, November 5, 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate pages[edit source]

Hi, Jauffre

FYI, Seneschal Andras and Seneshal Andras seem to be duplicates. I don't know for sure whether the correct spelling has been used in-game, so I'll let you be the judge. 1857a (talk) 23:17, November 13, 2018 (UTC)

TES Online[edit source]

Since you play The Elder Scrolls Online, evident by you adding in Bangkorai-related dialogue recently, might you tell which megaserver and what is your ID? We could work together, seeing as you're active in the same period that I am on the wiki.

The Dagonator (talk) 16:19, November 21, 2018 (UTC)

ESO quest infoboxes[edit source]

Hey Jauffre, good work with the content these past few weeks. When you fill in the infobox for a quest page like "The Lost Legion," you should be careful not to include a static figure as a parameter in the gold reward field. This number is always a range, and we have a template set up to display this information in the infobox called {{ESOGold}}. The range is then listed in a ==Rewards== section under ==Walkthrough==. This is only something that we do for ESO. —Atvelonis (talk) 20:35, December 22, 2018 (UTC)

Block[edit source]

I'm very disappointed to have to tell you that you've been blocked for a week as a direct result of your comment toward Anselmo499 on his talk page today, and indirectly for edit warring with him earlier in the day. While I certainly don't doubt your lore knowledge of matters related to the Empire, it is extremely unbecoming for a user with 9500 edits to engage in such condescension to a user with just seven as, "I hope you're happy to see you've succeeded in making this wiki less accurate. It would appear your NPOV and care for objectivity is lacking, so great to see the value of this wiki decrease by the day!" This is an excellent way to ensure that this user will never come back to the wiki again, which is absolutely not what we want.

I have not yet read into the sources for this particular conversation yet, although I intend to when I get the chance. The edit war was reported to me yesterday and I locked the page. I allowed the war itself to slide as far as blocks are concerned—these things happen—but for you to follow up such a thing with a blatant attack is discouraging and counter-productive, not to mention awful form. I would strongly recommend that you read this Wikipedia policy, particularly the section "How experienced editors avoid becoming involved in edit wars." That page has a bit about a "three-revert rule," but you are definitely mature enough to head to a talk page after no more than one reversion. I would further recommend the essays "Revert only when necessary" and "Please do not bite the newcomers."

You are a talented editor and I appreciate having you as a member of the community, but I cannot in good conscience allow you to go around slinging attacks at users because you disagree with an edit of theirs, no matter how stupid you think it is. They are not vandalizing, and do not deserve such treatment. Your block will expire exactly one week from today (on March 27th, UTC). Please, please take the time off to reflect upon the way in which you are interacting with other members of the community. They, much like you, are also humans with feelings of their own. Imagine them complexly. When you return, an apology would be in place. Please contact me here or off-site if you have any follow-up questions. Thank you. —Atvelonis (talk) 00:39, March 20, 2019 (UTC)

Image parameter[edit source]

Hey, just an FYI that if you put {{Missing}} in the "image" parameter of an infobox, the categorization will not work. The templates are designed to active the "image needed" categories only if the right side is completely empty. So just bear that in mind when creating pages. Thanks! —Atvelonis (talk) 19:32, July 10, 2019 (UTC)

Love your work, thanks for the help. Knew i could count on you since your understanding of lore far exceeds my own lol. 

Respectfully yours

AltmerAussie (talk) 20:05, August 18, 2019 (UTC)

Re: Meet the Character[edit source]

Any help you can provide would be great! The Cat Master (talk) 14:17, August 21, 2019 (UTC)

What do you think about this page's format. I used the idea from the LMA pages. The Cat Master (talk) 14:44, August 21, 2019 (UTC)

Revisions to A'Tor[edit source]

Hello,
I would just like to notify you of a revision made by Spymaster Cosades to A'Tor which undid your previous revision. Please do not engage by further editing the page in relation to the subject matter of the revision. I'm sure you know this would be edit warring and is obviously counter-productive. Instead, please speak directly to Cosades if you dispute his edits.
Thank you,
Grey Fox (talk) 10:35, November 21, 2019 (UTC)

Creation Club[edit source]

Hi Jauffre, in regard to the discussion on this page, although I stated otherwise on the original thread, it would not be completely out of the question to create standalone pages for the creations themselves so long as this does not increase patrolling complexity.

Creation Club material is at best medium-traffic, lacking most of the name recognition as the DLCs. For that reason, if we were to include CC materials alongside vanilla content, we would definitely have to implement some kind of content segmentation system, as we already do for DLCs (to do otherwise would be impossibly confusing for readers). If we consider documenting this low- to medium-importance content in terms of complexity, we get these options:

  1. Implementing a second layer of article tagging to differentiate between base game, DLC, and CC content. The capacity for double-tagging exists (e.g. a creation that affects or is affected by a DLC) and would be beyond confusing for readers. Two sets of superscript figures would just be incomprehensible, and popups are already a mobile-unfriendly system. Separating CC content into its own header would effectively be a worse version of splitting the article, à la tab navigation. We're absolutely not going to implement a <tabber>, TabView, or tab navigation system (very bad for SEO, unintuitive for editors, and complex to maintain). I don't think that this is a realistic option in any sense.
  2. Creating more pages for Creation Club mods themselves, but ensuring that CC material does not spill into other articles. This would be significantly more manageable, as it would largely remove the need to differentiate between CC and non-CC content on articles. We would have to tweak our categorization system slightly to accommodate the additional pages, but if kept them all under a hub "Category:Skyrim: Creation Club" category, which would probably be a subcategory of Category:Skyrim: Official Mods, it wouldn't interfere with anything else. This sort of modularity implies a low complexity and a limited capacity for confusion. The question would just be how much content to include on these pages; i.e. would it be possible to avoid the use of more specific Creation Club pages?
  3. Creation pages for Creation Club mods themselves, and creating pages for things within those mods, but still ensuring that CC material is not recorded elsewhere. This is an option that would have to be explored "down the road," if it were to be explored at all. It would be a significant jump from our current system to this. We would need to develop a more robust categorization system to accommodate the additional pages, and we would also have to decide on a naming scheme. It wouldn't really be reasonable to do something like "Items (Rare Curios)," as the creations are hardly big enough to warrant their own suffix, but likewise "Items (Creation Club)" would be too broad, and would result in conflicting material between different mods. The only solution I can think of would be to do something like "Rare Curios/Items." We tend not to use subpages on this wiki, but given the uniqueness of the Creation Club, I don't think it would be totally uncalled for. But this is not a decision that we can or should make now.

Do you have an opinion on this? —Atvelonis (talk) 21:07, May 8, 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I closed your thread last year because people stopped commenting on it, but this doesn't mean that the discussion is necessarily over. The issue that I brought up on there, the cost of the creations, is still very much a problem. I do not know how we would resolve it. —Atvelonis (talk) 21:14, May 8, 2020 (UTC)
Yes, as a rule of thumb I'm not really concerned about having stub pages on the wiki. I am more a proponent of eventualism than immediatism as far as content documentation goes. Particular ESO expansions, especially chapters, definitely have higher recognition than any particular CC creation, so we would document them anyway, but that is neither here nor there. My concern about CC content is almost exclusively related to how we would format it, and how patrollers/administrators would gain access to the mods needed to patrol it in full.
In the past, I have leveraged my position as a Wiki Manager to make use of Wikia's Game Rewards Program and give editors here DLCs/games for free. However, the program is on hold for the duration of the quarantine. Wikia also laid off or furloughed 14% of their workforce on the 30th, including my team lead (!), so you'll have to forgive me if I'm a little skeptical about the long-term stability of the role. But, conceivably, if I hold onto my job and the program resumes, it would maybe be possible for me to convince Shawn to give a couple of editors/staff members $135 worth of credits... although I definitely wouldn't count on it. Normally we try not to go above $60. I'm not philanthropic enough to pay for this out of pocket for more than maybe one person.
I agree with you that things that are broadly considered "part of the franchise" should be documented on the wiki. This is why I have always been sympathetic toward our documentation of Unlicensed Texts; regardless of my personal views toward them (not all of which are positive, I should say), they affect fans' collective understanding of the series and should not be ignored. The Creation Club isn't really any different, it's mostly just that its uniquely positioned and non-static nature in tandem make it an extremely unappealing beast. —Atvelonis (talk) 03:44, May 9, 2020 (UTC)
How open would you personally be to documenting CC content if you had access to it? —Atvelonis (talk) 22:40, May 9, 2020 (UTC)

Block (2)[edit source]

Hello Jauffre. I am, once again, sorely disappointed to witness your behavior on the "Maven Black-Briar" thread on /d today. I left a comment touching upon some of the things that were problematic about the thread as a whole here, but for the sake of accountability I am going to specify exactly what you did that resulted in a block on your part.

  1. "You're the one changing the meaning of the word "influence", not me. Buy a dictionary" (source).
    I share your irritation with the inability of many members of this community to structure their ideas in ways that are consistent and useful. However, telling someone to go "buy a dictionary" insults their intelligence. It suggests not that they have simply written a bad argument, but also that their breadth of knowledge is inferior to your own. The tone you employ in this message implies that they should not be commenting without such knowledge, which runs counter to the concept of open discussion that exists on /d. If you insist on arguing over semantics, a reasonable course of action would have been to 1) briefly restate your thesis and the precise subject over which you are arguing 2) provide the definitions that you are using to discuss it 3) relate your own arguments to those definitions 4) if the user you are speaking to is using the definitions incorrectly, you should softly point out that what you are arguing about is not exactly the same thing 5) refocus the discussion either using your definitions or theirs 6) if this proves unsuccessful, stop commenting immediately. Do not seek the last word.
  2. "You can leave with your tail between your legs all you like, but that doesn't make you right. You're still yet to prove your point" (source).
    This is an extremely combative statement. To suggest that a user choosing the mature option in a debate that is going sourly (that is, leaving the debate) is equivalent to them "leaving with their tail between their legs," in disgrace, is deeply problematic. By making this comment, you intentionally suggest that their reputation on the site has been harmed because of their "loss" of the discussion (which is in and of itself a problem; there are no winners and losers in discussions, and if you think there are, you seriously need to take a break from the internet—regardless of a block). You also encourage them to come back into the argument, continuing the toxic train of comments that could have been broken if the discussion had ceased.
  3. "Do you have any actual arguments?" (source).
    There is nothing wrong with the idea that you are conveying here, but your phrasing, and the use of this statement in the context of several other hostile ones, ensures that the tone it carries is strongly negative. This comment is dismissive, implying that everything that has already been said by the recipient is meaningless. I could not possibly care less whether or not you were correct, because it is rude either way. There was nothing preventing you from expressing this sentiment in a way that was not hostile. For example, "I'm sorry, but what you provided as evidence for your claim is not very convincing to me." This is not rude, it is just a comment. You could even follow it up with a request for a more in-depth source analysis. If the recipient takes it poorly, then that is on them, not you. But because you intentionally chose not to give them the benefit of the doubt in absolutely any way, and instead just condescended to them, the negativity of your comment is on you.
  4. "I've not made any contradictions, bud. And your last comment read like you were having a stroke" (source).
    I should not have to explain why this comment is unacceptable. There was nothing about the comment of the user you were referring to that is comparable to the manner of expression typically exhibited by persons undergoing a stroke. Even if there was, that is not a justification to compare their argument to that of someone whose brain is literally non-functional. This is indisputably an insult to their intelligence, which is strictly prohibited.
  5. "Difference is that in contrast to me, you've completely failed to provide evidence for your claims. I'm not leaving with my tail between my legs, I'm leaving because there's no point in wasting my time talking to someone who can't listen to reason and facts" (source).
    This comment is similar to the first, but is problematic in a second way because of your insistence that the person you're speaking to "can't listen to reason and facts." This is again dismissive and condescending. The human being behind that avatar has just as much agency as you, and is free to develop their own opinions. By making this comment, you suggest that what you say is The Truth (how many times have I linked this essay to you?) and that everything they say is not only false but inherently irrational, by virtue of their supposed inability to convey ideas through logical means. Through a fairly narrow definition of subjectivity, you may very well be correct, but this still does not give you the right to be rude about it.

When confronted about the toxicity of these comments, your defense for each of them was that they were "not insults." Not all of them were necessarily ad hominem, if that is what you consider an insult, but to be pedantic myself I would refer you to a widely accepted definition of the word "insult": "speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse." These comments definitely convey disrespect and scorn. Most of them are simply rude and indecorous, but some of them, such as the stroke comment, are actively hurtful.

So indeed, these are of varying severity, but the tone that you use in each of them—hostility—is consistent. You are fluent in English, so there is nothing stopping you from recognizing the problems with your wording. Their lack of confinement to a single comment, and your lack of apology for any wrongdoing, makes it impossible for me to judge this as a brief "outburst of passion." Your intent here was at best shockingly oblivious and at worst malicious, either way to the point that it cannot be overlooked. You engaged in this discussion in order to prove yourself right and others wrong at all costs, which manifested in a number of toxic comments. These collectively contribute to an extremely negative tone on the thread. This is completely unacceptable.

Other users certainly made stupid arguments, and on some occasions made snarky remarks back to you, but they were neither instigating nor nearly as intense as yours. You have also been a member of this community since August 2015—that's almost five years—and you should be aware that your position as a poweruser here makes you more accountable for your words and actions than a newbie. Senior users are the ones to whom newer users look up as role models, and for that reason they are held to a higher standard. You have also been blocked for reasons related to incivility three times in the past:

  1. 18:01, April 9, 2016: Atvelonis blocked Blademaster Jauffre with an expiry time of 2 weeks (Intimidating behavior/harassment)
  2. 17:19, September 21, 2016: Atvelonis blocked Blademaster Jauffre with an expiry time of 1 month (Intimidating behavior/harassment)
  3. 20:20, March 19, 2019: Atvelonis blocked Blademaster Jauffre with an expiry time of 1 week (Edit warring followed by a completely uncalled for personal attack. You should know better.)

I have spoken to you extensively on your talk page and on Discord about the consistently poor conduct that you have exhibited on the wiki, and although I have seen your demeanor improve noticeably since your first block, you have apparently not seriously listened to any of the advice I've given you. We all get irritated in arguments sometimes, and I am certainly no exception. However, your persistent habit of engaging in discussions to win them to the point that you participate in offensive conduct is highly unpleasant for other users, and does you no favors either.

Please recognize that I mean this in a constructive way, but I am going to suggest on a personal level that you seek one-on-one psychotherapy from a certified professional at your earliest convenience. I'm certain that this would be covered by your health insurance in the Netherlands (normally I would suggest physical meetings, although given the circumstances, video calls would be fine). There is a lot of stigma about receiving therapy in Western culture, but there is nothing wrong with it, even if you do not consider yourself "mentally ill" (I would not consider you so). I see a therapist on a weekly basis; I have no particular mental health issues, I've simply found that it's useful to work through my thought process with someone trained in psychotherapeutic methods. It helps me evaluate my own actions in the context of other people in a much more appropriate and understanding way. I'm afraid I can't offer any specific referrals, but I would suggest that you at least be open to the process. You may not find someone who "clicks" with you immediately (it's fine to try out multiple therapists at first), but when you do, it can really help a lot.

I was looking forward to working with you further on content expansion, particularly in regard to the Creation Club and various lore pages. That will have to wait at least one month: your block will expire at 20:09, June 13, 2020 (EDT). You are welcome to return on that date, but you are not welcome to engage on the Discussions in the way that you did on the Maven Black-Briar thread today. This behavior is unbecoming and deeply unpleasant to all involved. I have close to zero tolerance for toxic behavior on this site, especially coming from long-standing users. I chose not to increase your ban length with your third block because a certain amount of time had passed between it and your second, and I was prepared to assume good faith to some extent. However, I will not be granting you any more such leeway in the future. If a similar incident to this one occurs later on, your block length will be anywhere between three months and infinite.

I do not take pleasure in blocking users, especially editors. It is a routine, disinterested action for me, done in accordance with prescribed rules, and I would hope that you are capable of recognizing that it is not personal. I bear no ill will toward you, and I would like to see you editing again once your block ends. But you must understand that at no point in your life should you be going out of your way to make demeaning comments about other people; the wiki is no exception. If you wish to reply to some or all of this message, your block settings permit you to edit your own talk page, or you may message me privately on Discord. If that is the case, I will do my best to address any questions, comments, or concerns that you have. Thank you. —Atvelonis (talk) 01:52, May 14, 2020 (UTC)

Whatever you say. Let's ignore provocation and only focus on what happened, because who gives a damn about the real causes. Let's ignore being called a "troll", and "delusional", because that's inconvenient for the block, as is always the case.
Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 13:36, May 14, 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jauffre. You are making two main assumptions here which I would like to dispel:
  1. The users you are referring to were not justified in making either of those comments.
  2. However, responding with repeated hostility to insults is not a justifiable action.
"Provocation" is not a reason to make offensive remarks yourself. What you could have done, when confronted with rule-breaking comments, is use the "report" button and then stop commenting. There was no reason that you had to engage with material that insulted you in the first place, and certainly not with equivalent behavior. I would note, however, that your two comments to "buy a dictionary" and "you can leave with your tail between your legs" both occur prior to the remarks that you cite as provocation. You escalated the somewhat argumentative but still bearable tone of the thread into a hostile one. I will be addressing the Discussions community about its overall behavior in a thread when I have the time.
In regard to my undo of your archive, the talk page policy notes that "You may only archive resolved discussions." This discussion is clearly not resolved, seeing as you sent a message hours ago. If no messages are sent in a week or so, I would consider that sufficiently resolved. —Atvelonis (talk) 14:19, May 14, 2020 (UTC)

Thank you![edit source]

Your Lore articles are a pure blessing, thanks a lot for your effort! <3

Dareena (talk) 02:33, June 16, 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear I'm still not sure how user talks work, we have it different in the Russian part of the Wiki :D

Anyways, I'm working on the Interregnum part there atm and your Varen's Rebellion helped a lot!

Dareena (talk) 15:31, June 16, 2020 (UTC)

Sources[edit source]

If you come across a source that is no longer accessible, but was formerly accessible, please do not remove that information. Replace the link with a Wayback Machine link instead, or at least add {{fact}} to the statement. It's almost certainly backed up elsewhere, like The Imperial Library. —Atvelonis (talk) 16:34, July 20, 2020 (UTC)

It's fine if you need to reword it in order to integrate it into the article in a more seamlessly, but it's not best practice to remove information just because it contradicts with other sources. Since TES operates on the unreliable narrator, conflicting info should generally be documented somewhere. —Atvelonis (talk) 16:37, July 24, 2020 (UTC)
Sure it does. The concept of the Dragonborn originates with Alessia at the Covenant, and the introduction of Miraak as Dragonborn is seemingly in conflict with that lore. This line establishes a difference between the "type" of Dragonborn that Alessia vs. Miraak each are. I think Kirkbride's explanation is stupid and does nothing to make Miraak a less ridiculous character, but it's nevertheless an attempt to explain what could be described as a retcon in a more in-universe way.
We've been over the UL stuff many times. This wiki documents such material, and it's tagged appropriately. I'm not sure why this point bothers you over any other, considering it goes farther than most instances in that it directly cites the author, making it more than clear where it comes from. It's also in the trivia section, near the end of the page; it's not highlighted as an important part of the article in any way. The policy has been agreed upon in the past and will not be changed—your opinion on what constitutes as "misinformation" is not The Truth. —Atvelonis (talk) 19:27, July 24, 2020 (UTC)
You seem to be under the staggeringly false impression that I'm defending Kirkbride on a personal level, which is not the case (and never has been). I'm not sure how this isn't obvious, but endorsing the documentation of a particular text on an encyclopedia is unequivocally distinct from defending the author's character. I've read more flawed, often offensive political theory than I care to describe, but I don't selectively choose to remember only Mill and Rawls. We continue to read Marx, for instance, because of his contribution to the dialectical materialist school of thought; that he was an antisemite may inform our reading of his work, but does not make his ideas any less retroactively influential (as if such a thing were possible). That Wagner was a chauvinist and a racist should not in and of itself preclude our appreciating his revolutionizing operatic Gesamtkunstwerk. That Jefferson was a slaveholder and by some accounts a rapist does not erase his role as the author of the American Declaration of Independence or his subsequent role as president. I could go on for years—from a historical and in this case artistic standpoint, it is fundamentally antithetical to the purpose of an academically inclined encyclopedia to reject entire bodies of literature simply because they or their authors contradict themselves or otherwise leave a sour taste in our mouths. "Life is pain, highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something."
On TESWiki we document material that is noteworthy, not what we like. The wiki doesn't tell users what The Truth is, it simply gives them the resources to find their own—Truth is not something that is handed down to us from up above, it is something that we determine ourselves. Critical consensus may exist on a particular matter, but that does not mean that it cannot be incorrect, or that alternatives should be completely ignored. No scientist, and certainly no historian, would claim otherwise. Thus, as an encyclopedia, it is far more important for us to document work based on the influence that it and its authors have had than on whether its authors were honest, God-fearing men. The latter characteristic of is little import in this context; only in the unified analysis of an author's life and work is it particularly meaningful. But this is not something that we traditionally do outright on wikis. Such speculation is best left to forum posts.
I happen to like a few of Kirkbride's works to varying extents, including The Song of Pelinal, KINMUNE, and C0DA (to name a few well-known examples), but each for different reasons. The Song of Pelinal because of its authentic writing style and many of the metaphysical relationships it introduces, particularly between Pelinal, Akatosh, and Lorkhan. It's truly extraordinary. KINMUNE for its insincere and absurdly anachronistic style, and I suppose its more serious rejection of norms of the genre as a whole. C0DA for the meta-critical commentary that it offers on the nature of art and the way that we analyze it, particularly in the context of Truth-finding. I'm fond of a few others as well. But it would be false to suggest that my appreciation of these texts extends to all of his work, or in fact his person. I strongly dislike a lot of Kirkbride's writing. I don't especially like how on the nose he was about Pelinal's being "an insane collective swarmfoam war-fractal from the future, you betcha," I dislike the phallic and patriarchal imagery that he evokes in characters like Vivec (ironically) or Reman Cyrodiil (you could call it commentary, which might've been his intention, but it doesn't do much for me), and I find much of his writing is irritatingly self-serving in general. The Shonni-etta excerpts are some of the worst "high-quality" texts I've ever read—I would document them here, but I'm pretty sure they'd break the Terms of Use. Nor do I condone the haphazard way in which he tends to interact with the lore community. I don't approve of the hostile tone he takes in many of his comments, which I believe seriously detracts from any message he would otherwise be attempting to convey. I hadn't seen the comments from Velvin that you'd linked, but they don't contribute positively to my perception of Kirkbride's character either. However, these opinions are simply not relevant to whether or not we document his work.
Aramithius and I are in the process of reviewing The Towers page, but it's not really a priority. Generally speaking, I have very little interest in the opinion of /r/teslore. They are not the community that they once were, and their wavering views are not so much scholarly critique as hackneyed parroting (mostly of prior speculative or non-scholarly work). I do take moments of "public outrage" like this into account, but we are not beholden to them per se. Given that they flip-flop on their opinions of how we document content every six months, I see very little interest to begin paying close attention.
We have an article on The Imperial Library, so if you'd like to flesh out some sort of "History" section that includes a reference to Kirkbride's threats to sue, you're certainly free to do so. As a former librarian on TIL, Sinder Velvin is definitely a reliable source of information. —Atvelonis (talk) 00:47, July 25, 2020 (UTC)

ESO Live[edit source]

Hi Jauffre, nice job with the dialogue lately. If you have a moment, would you mind creating an article for Zen's ESO Live? You did good work with the Loremaster's Archive pages a while back, so I figured this would be up your alley. I don't think they need individual pages right now, just a table linking to each of them, but perhaps in the future we can look into transcribing them. The parameters should probably be name/number (?), date, and participants. If there's some sort of unique description for each one, then that too. I've been meaning to create this page (among others) for a very long time, but have been really occupied with other archival projects and lately preparations for our UCP upgrade, so I would appreciate it a lot if you could do this. Thanks.

P.S. we still need to sit down and work out something about making individual Creation Club pages, but I'm definitely not going to have the time for that until like December. So it might have to wait. —Atvelonis (talk) 17:54, August 12, 2020 (UTC)

Great, let me know how it goes. —Atvelonis (talk) 19:19, August 12, 2020 (UTC)

Re: Dialogue[edit source]

Sure, and thanks too!

Larry army (talk) 12:37, August 22, 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring, Stormcloaks[edit source]

Hello,
Please do not engage in an edit war like you have here. You have been warned about this twice in the past, once earning you a block. It is extremely counterproductive and reflects poorly on the involved parties. If there is a disagreement arising from an edit and your edit has been undone, do not respond by continuously undoing the other user's edits. Instead, contact them to discuss the matter and come to an agreement. Similarly, if another user undoes your undoing rather than approach you to discuss your edit, you should reach out to them rather than descend further into edit warring. This should be above you. I'm happy to answer any questions or comments you may have.
Thanks,
Grey Fox (talk) 05:10, August 25, 2020 (UTC)

Hello,
I strongly encourage you to familiarise yourself with the policies, characteristics, and philosophy of edit wars. The three-revert rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. In this instance, any reversion of a reversion itself constitutes an edit war, especially as it instigated further reversions by the other user. Furthermore, providing justification for your reversions does not justify edit warring. "... regardless of whether those edits are justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense". This is not a recommendation or counselling as to how you should behave with regards to situations like this; you need to follow policies, guidelines, and protocols. Please refer yourself to How experienced editors avoid becoming involved in edit wars.
Thanks,
Grey Fox (talk) 01:10, August 26, 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I am sorry that you have misinterpreted what constitutes edit warring. You do not need to revert any edit a specific number of times to participate in an edit war. I will reiterate that the three-revert rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. I already talked with Otto in Slack about the reversion he had made the moment he made it. You have an unfortunate tendency to disregard policy when it is inconvenient and so I, yet again, implore you to consider the Wiki's policies and apply them appropriately to your contributions.
Thanks,
Grey Fox (talk) 08:28, August 26, 2020 (UTC)
Users should not be reprimanded for edit warring unless they have reverted a reversion of another edit (whether it is their own or another person's) in a continuous thread of edits, or if they are repeatedly reverting normal, discrete changes to a page such that, were those changes within the same "thread," they would constitute an edit war by the prior definition. The latter is more of an "unwritten definition" that can be applied to catch edge cases. I don't think it's codified, although it is practiced in a vague sort of way.
I can see how factors like the history of the page and the users involved may lend themselves to a particular interpretation of this interaction through the lens of the latter definition of an edit war. I can also see that each of you are working on slightly different premises, leading to tension rather than consensus. My suggestion would be to take a step back, assume good faith in all interactions, and further to imagine others complexly. All necessary points in this conversation have been made. We may move on. —Atvelonis (talk) 04:03, August 28, 2020 (UTC)

Re: Greymoor content[edit source]

Hey Jauffre, thanks, that's nice. I came to see and found out you needed help with Greymoor, so I started working on it. There is still a lot to do. :-) --FrisyN (talk) 11:14, September 6, 2020 (UTC)

Re: Stormcloaks[edit source]

I remember specifically in one of my playthroughs, after clearing bandits and mages from forts, the stormcloaks will inhabit them. But since it's optional and has nothing to do with the Civil War, my edits have been reverted.

PuceAardvark (talk) 21:07, September 11, 2020 (UTC)

Re: Imperial Law[edit source]

Since Toryyg willingly accepted to duel Ulfric, I would not consider that treason.The High King could have had him arrested instantly for treason, but instead he chose to duel him. If imperials were going to see it as a "treason" then maybe they should not have allowed someone to duel The High King of Skyrim. Not only does this show how terrible imperial security is, but it also shows how stupid the High King was. I am tired of getting pointless messages on my wall everyday so I'm not reverting anyones edits anymore. If you feel the need to insert your imperial bias onto other pages on this Wiki, I won't stop you anymore. Have fun. "Duels for the throne are not to the death." Yeah, right. No one believes that.

No.

PuceAardvark (talk) 15:36, September 26, 2020 (UTC)

Galleries[edit source]

Hello, some galleries are broken after the migration, but the "null edit" should fix them. So if you see it, you just need to go into edit mode and save after changing nothing. I guess this was an attempt to fix them, so I'm letting you know about the issue. Cheers. --Rupuzioks (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

*Disclosure: Some of the links above are affiliate links, meaning, at no additional cost to you, Fandom will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase. Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.