FANDOM

Welcome, Dutyclaus!

Skyrim Logo Large

Hello Dutyclaus, 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.

--Atvelonis (talk) 18:32, July 18, 2019 (UTC)

Blades articles Edit

Hi. Great work on your recent edits! I'd just like to recommend that when creating pages that the links correspond to their correct item and that the summary has all the necessary cursory information including the name of the subject of the page in bold text (eg. "Boots are pieces of armor..."). Thanks. Grey Fox (talk) 09:05, August 13, 2019 (UTC)

Further to this, I would also use caution when adding categories. It can be difficult to remove them if it is wrongly applied, as they require the attention of an admin. Thanks. Grey Fox (talk) 09:14, August 13, 2019 (UTC)
Hello, new articles for the Blades indeed are needed, but I recommend to read our Style guide first before continuing. Also if possible use the templates above the page creation, they will add the article's layout automatically. --Rupuzioks (talk) 19:05, August 13, 2019 (UTC)

Re: Question Edit

No that's not my question. I want to understand it. Even if it's just your policy, I'd like to understand it or maybe even know it. Dutyclaus (talk) 20:51, August 19, 2019 (UTC)dutyclaus

Hello, the naming is our style and formatting policy. If you have any disagreements on it, you should propose a change in the Moot. --Rupuzioks (talk) 06:59, August 15, 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Adding to this, articles (particularly for items) are named with "(Blades)", etc if they appear in multiple sources to avoid any ambiguity. They otherwise don't include a bracketed source as is could conceivably cause confusion if another item, especially if it's unique, said ("Skyrim"), etc and inadvertently mislead someone to thinking it appeared in multiple games. Otherwise, there is no bracketed source as there is no need for disambiguation. There's also the point that not all items, even those one may expect to be common, may be in the following game. For example, Daedric Cuirasses don't exist in Skyrim although they were in the preceding games because they were called Daedric Armor. It would therefore be better to retroactively retitle articles than to predict that there will be a future page for the disambiguation to make sense and have said disambiguation exist without need for several years until the next game. It would also be great if you could elaborate on what you mean when you say "if someone is searching [for something] like cleaving damage the (Game) say[s] the information before they click." Finally, keep in mind that a lot of the operating environment for how the site (and pages therein) functions is dependent on Fandom and not the wiki itself including the features and limitations of the programming languages employed, so some of the policies and guidelines are based around that. Thanks. :) Grey Fox (talk) 01:35, August 17, 2019 (UTC)

SandboxEdit

Your contribution to the Blades articles is grately appreciated. I will suggest though, if you want to experiment with tables, I recommend creating a sandbox. (User:Dutyclaus/Sandbox) Telling people “it's currently beyond bonkers, it's just a save please don't fix it” in edit summaries is not recommended. Staff members here, by duty, will make it a point to fix or format recent edits or new articles. The Cat Master (talk) 03:10, August 20, 2019 (UTC)

Another thing you can do is use {{Construction|Dutyclaus}} at the top of the page you’re working on, if you don’t want people to edit it. The Cat Master (talk) 06:55, August 30, 2019 (UTC)

Tables Edit

Hello Dustyclaus. I notice that you've been doing a lot of work with Blades articles lately, especially creating/updating tables on them, such as here. I'm glad to see that you have an interest in this area of the wiki; it's something that needs attention. However, I would note that the reason you're having so much trouble with the tables is because you're using Wikia's proprietary Visual Editor to edit the wiki, as opposed to the more stable Source Editor. VE is a nice introduction—I started on it myself five years ago—but it is extremely buggy and lacks a certain amount of functionality. It is therefore strongly recommended that you go to Special:Preferences → Editing → Editing experience → Preferred editor → Source editor → Save (at the bottom). This will ensure that you do not have to deal with the poor design of VE, and will instead be able to edit articles in their truest form.

Using Source is not without its difficulties. Unlike VE, which is WYSIWYG and therefore easy to hop into, Source requires a little bit of syntactical knowledge of wikitext. It may seem a little confusing at first, as though you're programming, but in reality it is just a simple markup language. There is syntax to create a link, format text, use templates, add comments, insert HTML tags, etc. Some examples:

Feature Syntax Output
Link
[[Whiterun (Skyrim)]]
Whiterun (Skyrim)
Pipe link
[[Whiterun (Skyrim)|Whiterun]]
Whiterun
Text formatting
'''Bold''' and ''italics''.
Bold and italics.
Template
{{G}}
GoldIcon
Table
{|class="wikitable"
!Header 1
!Header 2
|-
|Cell 1
|Cell 2
|}
Header 1 Header 2
Cell 1 Cell 2

There is a little more to it than that (I have a full guide here), but that's the general idea. Please switch from Visual to Source, as it will make things significantly easier for you in the long run, and will decrease the amount of time we have to spend correcting formatting issues associated with VE. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. —Atvelonis (talk) 12:04, August 20, 2019 (UTC)

Formality Edit

Hello Dustyclaus. Thank you for your edits to our Blades pages as of late, we do appreciate the help. It's a little bit difficult to document information about the game. However, I would ask that you try to maintain a more formal tone when writing on mainspace (content) articles such as Spells (Blades). Information on content articles shouldn't be written as though it's a blog or a forum post—the wiki is fundamentally an encyclopedia. While you can certainly write in your own voice, it still has to be formal and more to-the-point. If readers can't figure out what they want in a few seconds, they usually leave the site.

By the way, in reference to this line on your profile: "I don't know why I got blocked for vandalism. [...]" Your account has never been blocked on TESWiki ("No matching items in log"). It's possible that you were using a public IP address, such as a school or your workplace, which has been temporarily blocked to prevent vandalism. However, you as a person are more than welcome to contribute here. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. —Atvelonis (talk) 15:40, August 21, 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just checking to see if you've been receiving our messages. I appreciate your enthusiasm on articles like Combat (Blades), but the wiki is not meant to be an all-inclusive gameplay guide. That page, for example, is just meant to describe combat mechanics, and, to a lesser extent, the way that players find success in the game's combat. I restructured a lot of what you wrote, but we still have to do more work on the article. It's written very informally, as though this is a personal blog. Please try to be mindful of how other articles on the wiki are designed, and write articles yourself based on that. Thanks. —Atvelonis (talk) 22:12, August 23, 2019 (UTC)
I don't really know how to respond. I guess I can try by doing it here.Dutyclaus (talk) 05:08, August 28, 2019 (UTC)
Hey! I saw your message on my talk page, thank you for the detailed reply. I completely understand that it can take some time to process all of the information we're giving you, and that's completely fine. Wiki editing does have a slight learning curve, so it will take you some time. Don't feel rushed to learn all of the policies on the whole site at once—that would be impossible! Go at your own pace.
The daily edit track can be a little wonky sometimes. It's possible that you encountered a bug, but you should also be aware of the fact that it resets on UTC time, not your current timezone. For example, 8 PM in New York (EST/EDT) would be 12 AM (midnight) in UTC, so you would have to have made your edit before that cutoff point for the counter to go up. —Atvelonis (talk) 12:07, August 28, 2019 (UTC)
The achievements system is quite old (2011 or 2012, if I'm not mistaken), and is one of Wikia's proprietary features. Seeing as whatever is causing this discrepancy appears to be controlled by the back-end code, I'm not sure there's anything I can do to fix this for you, unfortunately. You should reach out to the development team from this link. They might be able to offer better support, and potentially fix the issue. —Atvelonis (talk) 02:04, August 29, 2019 (UTC)

Re: Blocked Edit

I checked the IP addresses you've used recently, and none of them have been directly blocked on TESWiki. This makes me suspect that the cause of the issue is an IP range block (as opposed to a regular IP block), but we don't currently have any active range blocks on the wiki, to my knowledge. I would again recommend reaching out to Wikia support, as they can probably provide more useful help.

In the meantime, if you're accessing the wiki from your school or workplace, those are places where vandalism is likely to occur and IP blocks are therefore likely to be handed out. So you may want to only use private/home networks instead, or use a VPN when in public. —Atvelonis (talk) 16:47, September 1, 2019 (UTC)

Template Edit

If you need to add the missing info template, just copy and paste where you need it:

{{Missing|Blades}}

Although it might work differently on Visual Editor --Shockstorm (talk) 07:13, September 28, 2019 (UTC)

Re: Stubs Edit

In the case of Enchanting (Blades), {{Stub}} was probably just overlooked. You can remove it. If an entire section is missing, that would be an appropriate use of the template. It doesn't mean >50% missing content, just "a relatively significant amount." However, if it's one rather small section missing in an otherwise lengthy and complete article, it's not strictly necessary, and {{Missing}} is enough. It's not something to get into an edit war over though.

If you find that a user is re-adding such a template to an article of yours and you think that their edits are wrong, I urge you to reach out to them directly so that they can explain their train of thought. I can mediate disagreements between editors as needed, but it's easier to avoid using an intermediary when possible. Editors here will be happy to work out such things with you. :P

I don't control the counter in the achievements system; you just have to make sure that you're making an edit at least once in every 24-hour block for the duration of the number on the badge, based on UTC time. So if you wait until 10 PM EST to make your edit for the day, that's too late; it's past midnight in UTC, so the counter will think you're editing the next day, and therefore that you missed the current (or, in its mind, previous) one. I'd recommend making at least one edit when you wake up and one when you go to sleep if you really want to make sure. —Atvelonis (talk) 18:40, October 4, 2019 (UTC)

Hello, regarding the stubs, I was adding it back because the whole tables was missing info. Now it only has one or two entries that is missing the info, so it is fine to remove it.
"Enchanting (Blades)" article was overlooked because I planned to check the info myself at some point, but I never had the time to do so. I guess it is fine to remove the "Stub" template. If there are some mistakes I'm sure someone will check the info eventually. --Rupuzioks (talk) 09:37, October 5, 2019 (UTC)
I don't entirely understand what the issue you're having with the achievement system is. You need to make an edit in the timeframe that the system gives you, or else the counter won't update correctly. This means you have to do it before midnight UTC time (not midnight in your local timezone) every day.
On individual wikis, admins can only change the names and categories of achievements. I cannot give you days back on the achievement you're referring to; it's just not a tool that I have. If you want to request something like that, you really have to talk to Fandom via Special:Contact. The achievements system is "deprecated," i.e. Fandom is not working on it anymore, so I don't think they can do anything for you. You just have to make your edits every day, consecutively, without missing a day. I was able to get this badge, so I know it's possible. —Atvelonis (talk) 22:23, October 5, 2019 (UTC)

Re: Badge name Edit

Traditionally they're named for administrators, but we can see. —Atvelonis (talk) 00:56, October 12, 2019 (UTC)

I understood your joke. As I remarked above, badges are generally only named for sysops, as there are not a lot of non-admins who really have a comparable level of influence on the nature of the wiki as a whole; not just its article content, but the makeup and tone of its community, and its reputation off-site. I do not wish to discourage you from contributing, but you have to understand that this sort of thing is handed out very rarely, even more so than the prestigious Member of the Month award is, simply due to the small number of badges that can be named in this way. It therefore requires much more than just raw edits in order to be applied.
  • As Insane as Atvelonis – Awarded for making 500 edits on articles!
  • As Insane as Flightmare – Awarded for making 500 edits on Templates articles! (Disabled)
  • As Insane as EbonySkyrim – Awarded for making 500 edits on Online: Characters articles!
  • As Insane as Dovahsebrom – Awarded for making 500 edits on Lore: Events articles!
  • As Insane as Cheatcodechamp – Awarded for making 500 edits on Shivering Isles: Weapons articles!
  • As Insane as TombRaiser – Awarded for adding 500 pictures to articles!
  • As Insane as Timeoin – Awarded for adding 250 articles to categories!
I would further point out that although we have had 31 administrators, only six have badges named for them, as well as one forum moderator. This is not a standard honor for someone to receive. I have made about 120,000 manual edits and over 200,000 semi-automatic ones with my bot, hence the choice of which badge is associated with my name. However, there are plenty of admins who have made numerous edits as well. (I rarely speak about my own contributions in this way, but I feel that it is necessary here.) The reason that I have any badge is more to do with my extended stewardship/leadership of the wiki and the improved stability/efficiency that we have seen during my tenure relative to the previous administration than it is my edit count; which, while high, is mostly an effect of how long I have been editing, not what I have been editing. I have written extensive documentation detailing administrative theory, have coordinated a highly productive and closely-knit staff (a base-level failing of previous administrations that has until recently been a hallmark of a drama-filled community), and have increased the wiki's involvement with Wikia/Fandom (I am a Councilor and Wiki Manager), Bethesda (see raffles), and cooperation with other fan-operated communities in the TES fandom (UESP, The Imperial Library, /r/teslore, etc.). In fact, most of what I do is not making edits, but working behind the scenes to ensure that other people can do that comfortably. This is what warrants a badge in my name, not the edits alone.
Likewise, Flightmare has been an instrumental person in the technical development of the wiki, designing and maintaining MediaWiki pages, operating custom scripts for our Slack server and for Discussions moderation, etc. EbonySkyrim pioneered an astonishing amount of ESO content back in the day (she has over 50,000 edits), and was a particularly attentive bureaucrat during her tenure. She was actually one of my mentors when I first joined. Dovahsebrom was a talented forum moderator who revitalized an area of content that had traditionally been a primary motivating factor for users not to reference our site; i.e. his work was the beginning of a visible (and still ongoing) attitude change in the wider TES community toward the wiki. Cheatcodechamp's leadership and interpersonal skills—as well as his forward-thinking ideas about community management (e.g. the weekly updates)—in a time when the wiki was effectively doomed to collapse from a power vacuum (five admins had just resigned), are what earned him his badge. I worked with him closely in 2015 and 2016; that his name is attached to the Shivering Isles is incidental. TombRaiser added more images to the wiki than perhaps any other person, and was an instrumental bureaucrat in the site's early days, especially as Timeoin stepped away to attend to his family. She was another of my mentors. And, lastly, Timeoin has retained his badge because of his critical work in reviving the wiki from dormancy in 2011 as well as his incredible number of edits (105,000), a great many of which are related to content addition.
Some of the other ones are named for me by default. This is not an ego thing, there are just a finite number of genuinely extraordinary administrators in the community. I may find an inanimate name for those at some point. I understand that you're very passionate about the wiki, and that's a great thing—but it is a little presumptuous to repeatedly request that an award be named in your honor. That is not really in the spirit of encyclopedic contributions; they are, at a certain level, to be done with altruism in mind more than personal reasons.
Your edits to Blades articles are invaluable, and despite some communication issues early on, they have been a strong net positive on the wiki's Blades articles. I would very much like to see you continue to edit as such, but with the understand that what you are doing is fundamentally being done for the wiki, and for its readers, not for yourself.
I would also like to invite you to join our community's Discord server in order to facilitate your further editorial engagements. I apologize for the wall of text here. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks. —Atvelonis (talk) 15:45, October 31, 2019 (UTC)

'Status Effects (Blades)' Edit

Hi,
Regarding your contributions to 'Status Effects (Blades)' which has since been marked for deletion, there are a few things to note: When creating a page it is advisable to make sure that the information you intend to add cannot be added to another page where it would be more appropriate, which is why the page has been marked for deletion. When creating the contents of your contribution outside of the Wiki's editor, ensure before publication that the WikiText is correct and everything is formatted as best as it can be. If you need to save incomplete or draft information on the Wiki that would not yet be appropriate to add to a page itself, you can Sandbox it on your page. Finally, it is a lot better if templates like Attention are not used as messages to other users like this, but instead are used to bring attention to something that needs addressing on the page by an editor. Messages to other users should be ideally directed to them on their talk page or through Discord.
Thanks,
Grey Fox (talk) 13:56, October 15, 2019 (UTC)

Hi,
Thanks for the message. You created a page which appeared to have no information on it and only something to the effect of 'tytytytytytytyt.' It was clear to me that you created the page with the intention of adding substantive content to it later, so I added the Attention, Stub, and Incomplete templates indicating that the page should be started in some manner or otherwise deleted. It later became clear that you were attempting to import rich text from some other source on to the page which caused it to be improperly formatted. This is not useful to readers and, as such, instigated my message recommending the use of your sandbox.
The page was marked for deletion soon after by Rozty because it was believed that the same information already existed on another page and that it would not be appropriate to copy that same information to new page given that it already existed in a clear and accessible manner. If you have a problem with that decision, which I happened agree with, it would be more advisable to speak to her about it, or the administrator that made the deletion.
Lastly, the Attention template is used to succinctly indicate how an article may be improved as a tool for other editors. Your application of the Template was improper given that it excused your previous edits, acting as a message to another user and did not relate to the most recent revision of the page, as it should have.
Thanks,
Grey Fox (talk) 07:39, October 16, 2019 (UTC)
Hello, as Greyfox suggested, you should create your own Sandbox and then create, experiment with various formatting there first. When you are done with the article content, then just copy it to the real article. Otherwise the {{Attention}}, {{Incomplete}}, {{Tone}} and/or {{Stub}} templates will be always added to the article. These templates are the reminder for the readers and editors that there are issues with the article. --Rupuzioks (talk) 14:51, October 17, 2019 (UTC)

Writing toneEdit

Hi Dutyclaus! Your enthusiasm for adding The Elder Scrolls: Blades content is greatly appreciated, but you have to pay more attention to your writing style, as you have been advised before. While the information you want to add can be very informative for the readers, the way you have written it can be very confusing for someone to read. Most of the things you want to talk about in the content you add do not fit our style and formatting guidelines.

The tone is too informal and sometimes uses real-life examples, which should not appear in a game wiki at all. Sentences need to be short and to the point, otherwise, the reader will not be able to easily read the page. Using comparisons outside the game's mechanics and too many examples is also not advised, as it makes the tone too informal. Information should not be repeated if possible, and the content of a page should be limited to its subject, without trying to broadly approach the point. For example, in the Physical Damage article that you recently edited, one is expected to find 1) how physical damage is dealt, 2) how to influence the physical damage dealt, and 3) how to guard against it effectively, as some of the main points. Talking about something that doesn't affect physical damage (such as saying that "Enchantments are generally useless against preventing physical damage"), or doesn't directly influence it (such as the healing effects undoing the damage, or killing enemies more quickly) is only bloating the page, making it harder for the readers to find the information they want, and as such doesn't belong there.

I have tried my best to keep the main points of what you added in the pages, as the way you are writing the pages makes the contents very hard to follow, and perhaps even understand for people that are not familiar with the game. There is no need to overexplain, that only adds confusion for a reader. It is much more important to keep everything concise than to try and expand upon it too much. Please keep this in mind when adding new info, thank you. Rozty (talk) 19:40, October 16, 2019 (UTC)

Re: Deletionists Edit

I appreciate the message, and I will keep it in mind, but if you want me to talk to anyone in particular about an issue you're having, you need to provide the associated edit diffs for me to review. I cannot guess at which edits you're referring to. It is very difficult for me to apply your sentiments to anything tangible without specific examples, as I do not necessarily review every single edit made to the wiki myself.

If you find that people are correcting your work while you're writing it, please just edit in a sandbox (a blog technically works for this, but should really be avoided. The user namespace, via that link I gave, is preferred). Other editors will not touch any page that has your name on it, except perhaps to correct links, so all of the issues you've been talking about will not happen. This doesn't mean that your content won't be heavily edited after being published in the end, but it will at least not be manipulated while it's still unfinished. —Atvelonis (talk) 04:20, October 20, 2019 (UTC)

Hello, first I want to apologize if you feel not being in agreement. I get that there is a concept, but the term "Stat Damage" is not in the game, so those individual damage types should go to their own pages. There is no such pages for other games too, even if there is the concept again.
The page duplication and/or "the page is too lengthy" will not be an issue here. If it is an issue then it should be moved and just briefly explained on the Damage (Blades) page. I say "briefly" because you tend to include other info that is mostly related to other articles. For example including info about status effects in every article about damage. While it is ok to include a part about what the article's title is saying, but there is no point to include almost everything in.
Also about the draft you are talking, readers are visiting the site daily in millions and most of them are here just for the information on the specific topic. So the page being created should always have some sort of maintenance template to tell them that this article is under construction, incomplete, etc. If there is no such templates, some of them sometimes come back complaining that the info was incorrect or just leave and go to other sites.
Information is appreciated, but it mostly should be on point and not to be over extended. The important terms will have their own articles, but single little terms should just briefly mentioned somewhere on one of those articles. --Rupuzioks (talk) 11:16, October 20, 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I am saying that the concept is fine to have, but not on its own page. It is mostly included on that damage type specific pages, in this case on Magicka Damage and Stamina Damage (Blades). Also it is fine to briefly explain the concept on the main Damage (Blades) page. I am telling this mostly because there is no such pages for the other games too, also it is recommended to avoid creating the terms outside the game. The perfect example is the term "Dovah-Zul, Dragon-Voice" that was recently removed, because it is unsourced, see here. --Rupuzioks (talk) 13:35, October 21, 2019 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from. Although I don't know a great deal about Blades so I won't get involved in that. Just wanted to reassure you that nothing is ever really "deleted" here - an admin can always look at the page history (even long after the page has been deleted, they have special tools), and can restore the old version(s) in just a few seconds if needed. So your work is never really wasted. And you know, sometimes another edit might feel strongly that a page doesn't belong on the wiki (maybe it should be part of a bigger page, for example), and a few weeks later they might not have any issue with it. So don't take things too seriously, things here can be worked out pretty well for everyone :). Regardless, your passion and knowledge is greatly appreciated here --Shockstorm (talk) 02:56, October 22, 2019 (UTC)

Re: Stubs againEdit

Hello, I'm sorry if you feel intimidated by me, but you shouldn't be. We make mistakes too, even if we look like we should know everything in anytime.

For the "stub" matter, I guess there will always be somewhat subjective opinion how it should be used. For me it looks like that table have more info missing than it is already there, and therefore the section itself is incomplete, so there should be the stub template added. Especially for the critical info like numbers. Well, I won't go and re-add the template this time, since maybe this needs to be discussed more and have opinions from the other members. --Rupuzioks (talk) 14:57, November 5, 2019 (UTC)

Re: Badges Edit

The daily edit badge resets once per day, at midnight UTC. It does not matter what your timezone is, or when you made your edit that day. If you have not made an edit, and it's past midnight UTC, then the counter resets to 0. Just figure out when midnight UTC is compared to your timezone, and schedule your edits around that. Make sure that you don't wait too long before editing every day, and you'll get it.

As for your second question, I left you a very detailed reply on the matter on October 31st. You must have been notified that you received a talk page message? It's under the header "Re: Badge name." The short answer is that, yes, I have considered your request, but it is very, very nonstandard to issue a badge named after someone who is not an administrator or other staff member. It's not something you should seek out; if it's deserved, it simply happens. —Atvelonis (talk) 05:18, November 11, 2019 (UTC)

Re: Dremora (Blades) Edit

Dustyclaus, if someone reverts your edit—especially if they are a patroller or another staff member—you cannot just revert theirs because you think that you were correct. This is the definition of an edit war, and it is absolutely counter-productive. Your edit might actually be right, but by reverting their reversion, you are being disrespectful, and causing them to reciprocate further. The way that you stop this is to send them a talk page message. There is no rush to get your edit online. If you talk about it, and you explain your reasoning, chances are they will understand and you'll be able to come to a good compromise.

Edit warring is specifically against our policies and guidelines, and if I observe you participating in it again, you will be temporarily blocked from editing. (I will be speaking to the rest of the team about their interactions as well.) Literally every single one of the problems you're having could be stopped if you edited this way instead of doing what you are currently doing:

  1. Write a draft of your article on User:Dutyclaus/Sandbox. Other editors will not delete info from a page if it has this title. (Do not use a blog as a sandbox; blogs are really for news posts or essays, and are subject to deletion.)
  2. When you're finished, leave a message on an administrator or patroller's talk page asking them to review what you've written and give you feedback (but not to change it themselves). If you disagree with anything they say, or if you have questions about it, tell them, and they will be happy to work with you further.
  3. Then go back to your sandbox page and make the changes that you decided on together. Once you're done, ask them again for additional feedback.
  4. Repeat the previous step until you both agree that the article looks complete and correct.

You seem to be very concerned about having a constructive dialogue/learning experience while editing, and that's good. But you have to show patience, and make it clear to other editors that you aren't trying to "win" anything. By edit warring (the first step of which is undoing someone else's undo of your edit), you give your interaction with another user a negative tone. It's okay to undo an edit once, but if people still disagree after that, you have to talk about it on a talk page, not in edit summaries.

Please let me know if there is anything ambiguous about this message, and I will address your concerns to the best of my ability. —Atvelonis (talk) 00:23, November 12, 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the late reply. I appreciate your passion for Blades, and your interest in contributing to the subject. We want people to contribute new pages, but in many of your contributions, you tend to write in an informal manner, which is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. Some of the of the stuff you added to the Dremora page read more like commentaries that one may expect from a youtube video (at least that is how it appeared to me) Also you broke format be adding the fairly long descriptions to the types of dremora listed under the "Variants" section, which is not something we do. As Atvelonis mentioned in his message above, as well as others including myself, mentioned in past messages, you need to draft your proposed edits in a sandbox. If want an idea of how article are written here, I recommend reading some older ones, especially some Skyrim, Oblivion or Morrowind pages on similar subjects. Another thing I noticed is that it seems that you want to take ownership of pages you work on. Since this is a public wiki where anyone can edit, that is not a good habit. I could be wrong, but that is the impression I'm getting based on how you react sometimes when others edit your edits when we try to bring them to the proper format. As far as unlocking the Dremora (Blades) page, I will leave it locked for the time being. The Cat Master (talk) 15:21, November 12, 2019 (UTC)

I leave this here for a few reasons.

Please don't leave notes in {{Attention}} templates saying stuff like "Please refrain from moving it in dremora warlock, as information in it is refused as it needs to be general, and it gets referred to here. No more circles. And please, try to understand the ramifications of following advice from notices, these circular contradictions are not productive, and are very tiring for people who take this seriously." and "Please no more abusing the informal tone template. If there is one single word that is undesired, it is actually productive to fix it. Please do that so you teach, other wise go someplace else to degrade or troll." That's not what those are for. There is a chance that another editors besides you or the other regular editors here may want to add something to that page, and will probably be confused by what is going on when they see that. Besides what you said in them is mildly insulting. If you want us to teach you, then take this as a learning experience. Also... please, please, please start a sand box page if you want to write a drafts for new articles as Atvelonis and others have suggested. The Cat Master (talk) 17:59, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
And don't do this on people's page:

Please don't leave notes in


templates saying stuff like "Please refrain from moving it in dremora warlock, as information in it is refused as it needs to be general, and it gets referred to here. No more circles. And please, try to understand the ramifications of following advice from notices, these circular contradictions are not productive, and are very tiring for people who take this seriously." and "Please no more abusing the informal tone template. If there is one single word that is undesired, it is actually productive to fix it. Please do that so you teach, other wise go someplace else to degrade or troll." That's not what those are for. There is a chance that another editors besides you or the other regular editors here may want to add something to that page, and will probably be confused by what is going on when they see that. Besides what you said in them is mildly insulting. If you want us to teach you, then take this as a learning experience. Also... please, please, please start a sand box page if you want to write a drafts for new articles as Atvelonis and others have suggested. The Cat Master (talk) 17:59, November 12, 2019 (UTC)

I will soon teach you the difference between being insulting and not.



 THAT HIGH LEVEL STAFF MEMBER STARTED AN EDITING WAR ON A NOOB WHO JUST TRYING TO LEARN. We edit, we don't start and edit war and attack someone. HE'S NOT BEING INSULTED, HE SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF HIMSELF, AND MIGHT BE HUMILIATED, BUT THAT IS HIS FAULT. He is staff, and he behaved like this. I KEPT IT ANONOMOUS SO IT WOULDN'T INSULTED. And it's not insulting. HUMILIATING, PERHAPS, BUT I WAS JUST ASKING WHOEVER IT WAS TO STOP. Don't do something bad and have someone ask you to stop, IF THAT IS GOING TO EMBRASS HIM, THEN HE NEEDS TO ACT ACCORDING TO HIS POST AND SET A BETTER EXAMPLE.



 What I did is not insutling. He may be embarassed, but I was just asking it to stop in a way that could be deleted AND BE THE LEAST EMBARASSING. We have high some high level staff acting acting like little child and he has reason be emberassed. It's not an insult, he is shaming himself. That is not not my fault. I didn't call anyone out by name, and if someone has to look it up too bad. He was being stupid and unbecoming of a staff member.

Getting caught being retarded is emberassing, but not necisarilly insulting. 



 Getting called out like I am doing now, may be humiliating, but it's not insulting, because it is being done professionally, and it is called for. I have to defend myself and point out how you are wrong.












 POINTING OUT WHAT SOMEONE DID WRONG, LIKE I AM DOING, IS FINE. 

That is being degrading. People go to my page and they see this. That was uncalled for and unprofessional. This is an okay way to do it. Know the difference.








 THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ME QUOTING YOU AND YOU QUOTING ME, IS THAT I AM DOING IT IN A PROFESSIONAL MANNER- AND SETTING AN EXAMPLE. YOU ON THE OHTER HAND ARE JUST PUTTING THINGS IN A WAY THAT IS DEGRADING NOT PRODUCTICVE AND NOT THINKING ABOUT IT BEFORE YOU DO IT like how I did things the specific way i did it so as not to hurt feelings.

I AM TEACHING.

I AM EXPLAINING.

I AM POINTING OUT.

I AM COMPARING AND CONTRASTING.

I AM NOT DOING SOMETHING THAT IS INSULTING, YOU MIGHT BE EMBERASSED AS A RESULT, BUT WHAT I AM DOING IS NOT INSULTING YOU

YOU JUST PUT THINGS IN A WAY ON MY TALK PAGE THAT ME LOOKS BAD.

YOU COULD HAVE NOT QUOTED THE WHOLE THING AND JUST REFERENCED WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT

YOU ARE PRIMAIRLY CAUSING OTHERS TO LOOK DOWN ON ME

YOU ARE TRIGGERING BULLYING AND TEAM UP BEHAVIOR



 I AM STIMULATING INTELECTUAL THOUGHT

YOU ARE STIMULATING HUMAN NATURE



 I AM TRYING TO GET YOU TO THINK REALIZE SOME THINGS

WHAT YOU DID GETS PEOPLE TO FEEL AND NOT BE NICE



 WHAT I AM DOING IS TRUTH AND ACCURACY FIRST AND FORMOST

WHAT YOU DID WAS AT THE EXPENCE OF ACCURATCY OR HONESTY FOR THAT MATTER AND NOT TREATING YOUR PRIMARY FOCUS AS FIRST AND FOREMOST, BUT THE OTHER IS NOT AT THE EXPENCE OF YOUR FOCUS- I WAS NOT DOING THAT



 YOU COULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT HOW I WOULD FEEL (LIKE HOW I AM MESSEGING TO ANOTHER ADMIN SO THE GUY IS 1 ANONYMOUSLY REFERENCED AND 2 NOT STUCK WITH THIS ON HIS PAGE FOREVER)

I UNDERSTAND AS RESULT YOU MAY FEEL BAD, BUT IT IS AN ANAVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCE OF HANDLING THESE THINGS, WHICH IS A RESPONCE BECAUSE YOU PUT SOMEONE INBETWEEN A ROCK AND HARDPLACE. You could have though about the responce to your responce, I am stuck with the path you chose.



 What I did was show you and explain to you what you did. You did not have to quote what I said. I keep things vague and don't call the others out by name, if someone wants to 



Another thing between me and you is that while you may feel ashamed and embarassed, and maybe humilated, when you did it, I only am annoyed. I am annoyed because someone is being halfassed and not thinking.

I am annoyed because of the whole someone who is a noob is fine, but someone who is in a higher postion has a responsibility and obligation thing (and it kind of anyons me when people with more power/ authority don't properly handle the increase of responsibility and obligation- or perhaps that's not the way to put it and instead it should be put more in terms of the noobs can jack around, but it's more anoying when the people in position who should no better don't)






How do you think I feel? It's probably asymetric, so there is not need to right back at me. Think about it. 

When someone screws up, it's one thing. Yeah they are embarassed, yeah it sucks for them, but oh well, it has to be. Also, not only is it okay for me to respond if I have a proper cause for it, but I still have to do things in certain way (and that's actually all of us).

What you did was not have proper reason to say WHAT you said and HOW you said it, but perhaps still a cause to do SOMETHING.

I am teaching, I am explaining... I am pointing things out. I am being a teacher. I am leading by example, and setting an example. Also, I am a noob.

You on the other hand were not teaching or pointing anything out. You were not being a teacher, but more like a tadler (and no, having the position to handle things unlike other users does not give you the right to handle them wrong). You were not leading example, but doing things in a way that even staff shouldn't do, and you were being more like a boss and not a leader. Also, you are not a noob. 



 When I am quoting you, it actually helps logically. It shows what I am getting at.

The only thing that quoting does is help in generating emotions. It doesn't prove a point, it doesn't help with the point, it doesn't support your point, and it doesn't integrate into what you trying to get at an is basically ad hominym and serves to convince people you are right by taking advantage of how people's opinions are swayed when someone else is made to look bad. 

I am doing it in a logical manner, and though rather have it not there, it is necesary.

It was not necisary for you. It didn't have to be there. 

For you perhaps it is personal preference, for me it's relevant (logically) for you it's not logical (but it is emotianally but also false- as it only serves to sway: and a thing that does so irrigardless of logic or right and wrong, but on a completely different system that works compeletely different and is for comepletely different base objectives).



 If someone screws up, the point is to teach or comunicate, not have lasting accuization. It is not degrade or make people look bad, it is to be constructive not just accusitory. 

Whatever you were actually trying to accomplish, the outcome is what I said you did (or were doing- past tense sence and not intent sence)






If I'm in the wrong, I want to know why It is so easy to spew out all the holes that some seasoned individuals seem to have as solid choices. In fact, there are so many flaws to point out that it is actually hard to point them all out.


I undesrtand that you can delete this, but also I understand that it is not wrong for me to put this.

Dutyclaus (talk) 16:21, November 13, 2019 (UTC)

I will try to show you the ropes the best I can, so will others here. I'm not the best at writing articles, (My strong suit is formatting) but there are others here who are better at that and may offer you advice if you ask. Cheers. The Cat Master (talk) 18:29, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
I tried to be patient with you, but I reached my limit. It is not our problem that you choose not to learn. Keep your ramblings to your self. I'm not in the mood today. Good day. The Cat Master (talk) 15:55, November 13, 2019 (UTC)

Re: Dremora (Blades) (cont.) Edit

Hi Dutyclaus. So that is a very long message from you. I will try to reply to everything point-by-point. It is very difficult for me to teach you asynchonously. I can keep responding to messages on your talk page if you want, but it would be better if we talked one-on-one on Discord (Atvelonis#9495) or another private messaging platform, so that we don't have to send these huge messages.

I can assure you that none of the staff members are purposely badge-hunting. We have an unusually stringent staff selection process that prevents people who are only editing the wiki for narcissistic reasons from being promoted. I'm personally in charge of handling appointments/applications, and although no staff member is absolutely perfect, I know that none of them have ulterior motives toward the wiki. They love this place just as much as me, and aren't editing because they like getting clout. They also just want to help.


I think it is fair to say that your edits are sometimes being reverted too hastily. For example, in reference to your edit on Dremora (Blades), the information that you added was not 100% bad. I think that some of it was useful. However, it was not formatted well, and was written in a grammatically confusing and informal way. A lot of it also should have been on different pages. It's completely possible for you to edit redirects! There was actually nothing stopping you from putting it in the correct place. If you go to a redirect link, you just have to go back to the top of the page and click on the redirect. Then, click on the "Edit" button on the redirect page, and you can add the content specific to that Dremora variant.

So why was your content reverted? I would not use the word "laziness," because our patrollers spend many, many hours every week helping the wiki, and are not even paid for it (it is a volunteer position). They are not lazy. Rather, the amount of time and energy that it would take a patroller to fix that edit, relative to how many other edits they have to review every single day (hundreds, and sometimes thousands), is not proportionate. C'est-à-dire, because the workload of the patrollers can be pretty high, sometimes they have to make quick decisions like that. The fact of the matter is that your edit, while it contained some useful information, could have been 90% smaller, and could have been formatted like other articles, and written in a more encyclopedic tone.

So while we assume good faith, and understand that you had good intentions adding it, the edit itself was not a "good edit." If a reader saw that, they would get confused and go to a different website to find the information they're looking for. It had a lot of problems, and the patrollers decided that it would be more efficient to largely revert it and ask you to start over, than to try to fix every detail of it themselves. The net amount of effort that it would take for you to rewrite your own content is a lot lower than what it would take another person to try to first understand it, and then rewrite it. It's an unfortunate tradeoff that has to be made sometimes; a necessary evil.

I am planning on holding additional training sessions with the patrollers at some point, so that they may become more proficient at cleaning up edits and whatnot in the future. However, I am very busy, and I have not done this yet. They do have some formal training and a lot of general experience already, but there are always ways that we can improve. I am aware of this and will be addressing it, but it takes a long time.


It's very kind of you to say that I "emanate professionalism." This wiki has been an important part of my life for a long time, and I try to make sure that everything is done based on a good system, not arbitrarily. At its core, the wiki is structured in an extremely particular way, according to the policies and guidelines, and the style and formatting guides. These are the systems by which editors determine if a given edit is okay or not. I just want to make it clear that nothing that anyone is saying to you is personal. The staff are just following those guidelines as well as they can. It can be hard to interpret them sometimes, and they might make mistakes, but it's all in good faith.

If your edit does not conform to these policies, then it is going to be reverted, or changed significantly. That is just how the wiki works. If we don't have rules standardizing our content, it will become absolutely impossible for readers to find useful information on the wiki. It would be like if you threw every single book in a library into a gigantic pile instead of using the Dewey Decimal System to organize them by subject matter. So when someone adds a notice on an article, such as {{Tone}} or {{Attention}}, it is not a personal attack against you. It's just a systematic way (via categorization, such as Category:Articles with Unencyclopedic Tone or Category:Articles Needing Attention) for editors to organize which articles need to be worked on, and in which ways. Without these templates, it's really challenging for us to know how to improve the wiki; we have 65,000 articles! So you should not be offended or insulted when these templates are added to a page, even if you are currently working on it. We don't have a guarantee that you, or anyone else, will finish it. So in the meantime, the templates are put on the article, just in case. You can always remove them when you are done.

If you find it distracting to have other people editing your work at the same time as you, then, please, listen to my advice that I have already given (multiple times), and draft your articles on User:Dutyclaus/Sandbox instead of putting them right on the mainspace. For the most part, we will never edit that page. Then ask us what we think of the draft, and we'll give you feedback, and then once it reaches a point where it's good, you can publish it. This will fix basically all of your problems.


I would ask that you not refer to staff members as "sneaky and lazy" or whatever. I have known Rupuzioks for a long time, and he is a genuinely good person. He is not manipulating me. (Not to sound too dictatorial, but the social power structure on this wiki does not work that way!) He may be harder on judging your edits than I am, because he is not a native English speaker like me, so when you write something that doesn't make grammatical sense, perhaps less of your meaning comes through to him. This doesn't mean that he is targeting/bullying you, that's just his perspective. He's not trying to make you look bad. It's his job to make sure that edits conform to the style guide, so if what you are writing just doesn't make sense, then of course he is going to remove it from the wiki. And a lot of the time, what you're writing truly doesn't make sense, even to me, so I have trouble faulting that too much.

Maybe you are not aware of this, but the staff are all in contact with each other on a private Slack channel, and we have been discussing your edits for weeks, as they come up. You have actually been stressing us out a lot because of how much work it takes to fix your edits; this agitation that you are experiencing is not a one-sided affair. The Cat Master was a little bit snappy with you earlier today because you left him a gigantic and emotional message, much of which was in all-caps, and which he did not have the time to review. We have lives as well; this is something that we do for fun. So to have to respond to something like that is not enjoyable.


The definition of an edit war is "reverting someone else's reversion of your edit." In a case like Dremora (Blades), maybe you technically did make some small changes, but they were so minuscule that it is not reasonable to call it an improvement. The problems he brought up are fundamental. You did not use any headers properly; you used bullet points in a section where they were not needed (you should almost always write in paragraphs when discussing tactics), your edit contained various RTE errors such as <h2 data-rte-empty-lines-before="1">, and you added an incorrect category (Dremora are considered characters in the game files, not creatures). But above all, what you wrote is incredibly wordy for no reason, and written like a poem or a literary essay, not a wiki article. Here are some examples.

For those who are good at 'listening', they will realize just how much these guys need to chill, and will likely add frost damage to their weapons.

This is extremely informal; it's almost talking to the reader ("for those who are good at listening"). It has no accessible information. It implies that the Fugitive should add frost damage enchantments to their weapons, but it does not state it directly, so it is not useful. To a reader who is looking for quick information, this sentence is meaningless. If you want to say that the player should do something, you have to say it very, very directly. You should say, literally, "The Fugitive can defeat Dremora easily by using weapons enchanted with frost damage," or something to that effect. It has 100% of the information, but is written in a way that requires zero interpretation on the part of the reader.

After even more contemplation, and pondering the meanings of these debates, one will eventually realize that it is more effective to search within and not let their heated points effect one, than it is to to have the most countering assault of attempted defeating, also as than it is to have thick skin. It does not hurt to chill a flame, but it is sometimes better to have thick armor.

What does this mean? Why are you talking about self-contemplation and "search[ing] within"? This is a wiki article; we just want the useful information about the game. The entire purpose of this paragraph is to say "A good tactic against Dremora is also wear thick armor." So why not just say that? Why write an entire flowery paragraph about what the player should be thinking? That's not relevant to them—so it should not be there.

Eventually, one realizes what being cut to pieces to become better, and they gain an appreciation for the enemy and all the experiences of the world.

So it is also not your job to tell readers that they should "gain an appreciation for the enemy." Readers just do not care about that. You shouldn't try to be funny or interesting in your writing on the wiki; people come here specifically because they want actual info. The wiki is an encyclopedia; would you ever see something like this written in the Encyclopædia Britannica? Probably not!

Does this help you improve the formality of your writing? Do you want more assistance? I can talk to you about this more if needed. You just need to communicate with me about what you're confused over.


I tried to read both of your blogs, This lesson needs to be written about and Written part two, but I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say. This is like a mix of article content and argumentative information. Where does the article end, and where does the actual blog begin? Why are there a ton of timestamps everywhere? If you want people to understand you, you have to organize your information well. Here is an example of one of my blogs; each topic has its own header, and the information in it is all relevant. This allows members of the community to read it and understand it instantly. I can already see what your actual edits are via the page history, so at most you would just need to link to that, not include an entire copy+paste of the article in the blog, because that just doesn't make sense, and is very confusing.


You don't blame the noob when the staff starts an edit war. You blame the staff because they are setting the example. You don't let someone with the experience get away with it because it's too easy for the experienced to, like with a witch hunt, make the new person look bad when they are not.

This is a very good point. I have spoken to the staff about not participating in edit wars themselves. They should know better.


Drama free? No it's not. We have edit war because of a staff memeber who deletes stuff over and over again.

I don't mean to belittle your perspective, but the significance of drama is sort of relative. I would not consider these interactions to be "significant drama." In the grand scheme of things, it is a minor editorial dispute, and we are working it out right now. The drama that I was referring to—what really had me scared four or five years ago—was a complete lack of qualified staff members on the wiki. Imagine this: one day, you wake up and go on the wiki, and literally every single active administrator/patroller has resigned. That's pretty much what January 2015 was like, and that was after two straight years of non-stop arguments, every single day, between basically every user on the wiki. That is "significant drama."

So I hope you can understand that after experiencing that, issues like this don't seem like the end of the world! Of course I want to help resolve this, but there is no use getting worked up. I think it is best for everyone involved to try to sit down and think about it carefully. These things require a lot more self-reflection than people think.


I understand that you are not trying to do anything wrong. There is no need to be worried. As long as you make an effort to be kind and considerate toward other users, and work on improving your edits as well as you can, you are not going to be punished. Now you know that you should not edit war; now you know that you should not write so informally; now you know that you should organize your content a little better. Treat all of this as a learning experience. Please let me know if you have any questions, and I will address them to the best of my ability. Thanks. —Atvelonis (talk) 21:00, November 13, 2019 (UTC)

Re: staff management: Staff selection is fine,but about after? can they just cause issue after. If they can do no wrong after they are selected, then only promote issues, and can';t fix them. Systems have to have post hiring quality control.
Re: hasty edit reversions: Yes, the issue is they don't let me edit it and learn.
Re: laziness: What I mean by lazy, is they just delete rather edit or teach. It is more helpful to not do any edits like that at all. NA allot of the issues with em are artificially created by fatigue caused by not doing things the right way.
Re: laziness: Lazy in thought. Yes as I will submit soon, there are issues from not thinking things through and being lazy. Just deleting all work is lazy. ANd there is a such thing as bad help. If someone puts in hours and hours of work and it is unhelpful, well it is not fair to credit them. That is what I mean by edit number hunting. ANd you just poitned out the attractant the motive.
Re: staff training: That is very much needed. I am not saying that they are trying to be bad, but some people are just doing things that cause hours and hours and hours of problems and would be better off doing nothing, and it would more productive. Not that they are trolls or intentionally badge hunting, but it effectively is edit hunting when quantity over quality is a thing. Bad hours that cause other people to waste time, is not a plus and isn't an example how they so helpful. If they spend 3 hours and cause ten hours of work and issues and stress for other, think about it. It does no good to speed race help. Some people just need to slow down and become awhere of how much trouble they are causing (unintetnionally)
Re: reverting: Sometimes reverting is not the right choice. Sometimes there is an intermediate feedback edit I need so I can learn. Some times the deletion post is not productive or helpful and there needs to be feedback, or just wait a few day for a person who wrote for hours to edit it. When I have enough time, I fix it. SOmetimes if you can't be bothered to fix it, save the tab, and get back to it later or let someone else fix it.
Re: sandbox: That is the opposite of the issue. I need them to edit. What some people do is not edit but just rash everything. How am I supposed to learn? It just makes me fatigue and causes more issue, then I get misplaced feedback (when the real issue I'm tired because I'm wasting energy fixing issue from choices that should be differently or later)
Re: staff adjectives: I'm not trying to say he is. But imagine the experience for every person who comes in and has to experience this. It is just like dealing with that, I'm sure it's misunderstanding, but I'm trying to say something else.
Re: stressing out staff: Then let me fix it. Just be patient. If it's in rough draft, just let me fix it. You people are too quick. The problem is artificial and from a lack of understanding. When I have time to edit, I fix them, myself. The problem is that my stuff being a pain is created. That's why I'm stressed. The second time around my edits are going to be harder. Instead of fatiguing me and editing lower quality work, let me not be so exhausted. SO many issue are caused that in turr cause issues. My edits are an issue because of things that are being done that create issues for me.
Re: all-caps message: I have to do that because it is the only way for you to realize just how much you are making me miserable. You have an issue with me because you are making me miserable and tired. You need to know that for months you guys have been doing that. I went to one edit a day because I so misserable because of you guys. It's the only way I can comperly let comunicate that and tackle the issues. You guys are causing issues (not that it's intentional) that seems like just aren't only for me.
Re: informality: One way is to just let me figure it out. Again, I'm only being informal because i'm too tired to do anything other rough draft quality first, and then come back and fix it. Again, we are barking up the wrong tree. I also am not going to do tv tropes here, I understand now the goal here.
Re: informality: I get that... so instead of deleting everything and having all this typing, just don't delete everything and put that there, or wait another day, or let me come bakc and fix it
Re: flowery language: Sometimes I need to get myself thinking, and intend to edit my edits and not hav ethems stay. They would be nothing more than an ester egg that let me get things started in a fatigue state. Again, the issue isn't I'm informal or a bad writer, the issue is I have issues from certain choices, and they may apere like this, but they are really something else. And that is why I was so offended for so long, but I am only trying to get you get you guys to realize that this the experience on the other end. It feels very degrading all the time, and other people are not going to be able to handle it like me, so instead of keeping my mouth shut, I am trying to shed light on these issues.
Re: formality: I figured that out. In fact, instead of typing stuff deleting, just say that an let the other person take your input and do the work. Don't take the time to edit it yourself if that's the issue,a nd just burn it all down. Just say that. Instead I have something confusing about a flower poem. THat doesn't make any sence or comunicate what is desired. It's cryptic.
Re: blogs: I'm not done with them. If I had more energy, but I am prioritizing what to communicate first, and this has to be done first.
Re: staff edit warring: Your right, and if you realize the moral of the story is there are better ways to deal with things, you might realize is going on. It's not that I'm informal, that is caused by improper ways of handling things that has gone on for months and months. That's what is what is really going on, and it isn't always that bad, most of improper way of handling things is by being a deletionist for each and every problem or doing 30 less edits that week and taking a few extra seconds to think about what's being said. If someone can two pages of why what you just said is wrong or makes sence, then you are wasting more time than you are doing properly.
Re: drama: It's not, but months and months of annoying crap and then being accused of stuff? I am only putting in a crap tonn of effort, I am not doing it because I am emotionally juiced up, I am making myself and pushing myself. The last thing I need is to get kicked because some other people don't have a clue what experience they are giving the other poor people.
Re: closing message: And that has been one thing that went into some decisions that were less desirable. THe issue is I am a noob and am going to, unfortunately and undesirably, not make make self clear for a while until I figure things outDutyclaus (talk) 21:17, November 15, 2019 (UTC)
I'm telling you now, edit in a sandbox. It will fix every single issue you are having with the patrollers if you do it properly. Every single issue. Plenty of editors use sandboxes all the time, including myself. Take Blademaster Jauffre, for example, in his sandbox. He writes all of his major articles on here prior to publication so that he can do it at his own pace, and not worry about other people editing his work. This is an incredibly effective way to edit the wiki. Patrollers will generally not mess with what you have on a sandbox page. You can write at your own page, without the warning messages and without anyone else changing up your content. Once you've written a full first draft, ask a patroller or administrator for advice on the article. They will happily explain what is wrong with it and how to fix it.
If you are actually interested in learning how to edit better, there is literally no reason for you not to use a sandbox and edit in this way. There is no rush to get your article up on the mainspace. It is always better to publish a draft on a sandbox beforehand. It is by far the most constructive way for us to help you. If you refuse to do this, then I really don't know what to say. It's an extremely easy solution to your issues that you are ignoring for some reason.
And maybe I did not make this clear in my previous messages. On the content article mainspace, the patrollers cannot just wait for you to fix your edits. We are constantly on a clock. We get a bare minimum of 500,000 pageviews every single day this time of year. On busy days, it's easily more like 1.2 million. That's 50,000 an hour, or 833 every single minute. So within one minute of your article going live, it could have been seen by tens of people. Say it takes you an extra hour or two to finish what you've written; that's 100,000 pageviews on the wiki as a whole, and possibly hundreds on your particular article, especially if it's about a topic that people are very interested in.
That means that if you publish an article that does not make any sense, or has very strange formatting, as many of your articles in their early stages do, all of those readers will see it and begin to associate the wiki as a whole with confusing or nonsensical content and poor formatting. It only takes one bad experience for someone to decide that they never want to come back here again. This is very bad for our reputation as a reliable encyclopedia, and it seriously hurts the project in the long term if we allow these problems to stack up. So no, we cannot make any exceptions for you. I've offered you a perfect solution to this issue of being interrupted while editing: take it!
The staff want to help you learn how to become a better editor. The patrollers in particular really want to see you become a better editor. However, we are understaffed and in a rush, every single day—there is no way to avoid that right now. Every other editor is able to work with this system appropriately; you shouldn't be any different. So take it slow, and edit on a sandbox. Please join our Discord server—a way to talk to other editors in something more like real time—if you actually want to talk to us more efficiently as well. —Atvelonis (talk) 05:37, November 16, 2019 (UTC)
I have already acknowledged that:
  1. Rupuzioks participated in an edit war. I have spoken to him about that.
  2. Your edits are being reverted by staff too hastily sometimes. We are trying to be more careful now.
So there is no need to repeat yourself in a 1000-word message. The staff were at fault here. You do not need to prove what you have already said to me. I understand it. As you still sound concerned about your edits being messed with on the mainspace, just use a sandbox when editing in the future, and this won't happen again; it's very simple!
Your edits were absolutely not in accordance with the style and formatting guides. Perhaps you did not knowingly disobey the rules, but you definitely still disobeyed them. This is okay. They are very complex, and it takes a long time to learn them. You don't need to become defensive about this.
Regarding whether you should obey the rules vs. those in power, I think that your interest in administrative theory is valuable, but those specific questions are sort of irrelevant. Here is a simple logical proof for you to consider:
  1. By definition, all members of the set of users are required to follow the wiki's rules at all times.
  2. By definition, if a member of the set of users does not follow the wiki's rules, they will face administrative action.
  3. By definition, staff members are a subset of the set of users.
  4. Thus, all staff members are required to follow the wiki's rules at all times.
  5. And thus, if a staff member does not follow the wiki's rules, they will face administrative action.
In other words, if the guidelines and staff disagree, follow the guidelines. They are correct, and staff members are not above them. Wikilawyering is against the rules, so staff members will not do it. If they do do it, they will "face administrative action," i.e. be warned or punished. If you are having a specific issue with a staff member, talk to me or another administrator. If this occurs, be sure to link to specific edit diffs and be extremely clear about what the problem is; I am happy to mediate an editorial disagreement between you and another user, but you have a tendency to say "that person" and "that edit," which is useless to me.
Is there a reason that you have not joined our Discord server? Discord is a free text chat application that we use to communicate about the wiki. It is the perfect place to ask for feedback about your edits and to learn how to edit better, so if that is what you want to do, you're missing out. There are about 400 people on the server, and at any given moment there, 3+ staff members are probably online who will respond to you in real time if you ping them. —Atvelonis (talk) 03:27, November 20, 2019 (UTC)

Re: Enemies (Blades) Edit

Hello, I'll explain what I meant in the summary. I was referring to the moot decision on February 2018. It was decided to remove "Enemies" categories and articles from all games. In the moot summary only mentioned Skyrim and Online games, because only for them there are created specific templates.

If you want to counter this decision you must create a consensus topic and explain why it is needed. Also I only said that it "might" be deleted, maybe there will be an exception for the Blades game.

Lastly, the 70-80% content on the page can be moved to the Combat (Blades) article, the rest of the information is relevant to the "Characters," "Creatures" and/or "Abyss" location. Also there is already a sentence from the in-game description:

Combat starts automatically when you and an enemy are close to each other.

So you can briefly explain further in the paragraph below what it means by moving the information about the zone and alerting from the "Enemies" article.

While you might think the "Combat" article is too big, there are a lot of duplicate or similar information that can be combined in one or two sections. For example:

Combat involves a rock paper-scissors mechanic for causing and receiving damage. This involves two different categories of damage: elemental and physical damage,
Melee in Blades follows a rock paper scissors mechanic for both physical and elemental damage.

This is basically the same information and should be mentioned once.

I hope this is the explanation you wanted. Also a reminder that all of us are busy IRL too, so please do not get upset for the lack of responses and/or explanations. We are aware of the questions and we are happy to provide the answers as soon as "possible," but not as soon as needed. If you want somewhat quicker responses, though still less, you have been invited to the Discord server to join. --Rupuzioks (talk) 15:53, November 15, 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I know about busy, but I am just saying that are making more work and is unesisarryDutyclaus (talk) 21:17, November 15, 2019 (UTC)
Dutyclaus (talk) 21:17, November 15, 2019 (UTC)
That is not a refutation of any of Rupuzioks' points. It is absolutely not "more work" to state information once instead of twice on an article. By definition, it takes less energy to do an action once than it does to do that same action two times. Content should always be grouped in a way that makes sense according to the article's title, otherwise readers will not be able to find it. Information irrelevant to a given article should never remain; that is disorderly and confusing to readers.
What Rupuzioks is stating is in accordance with the wiki's policies and style guides, and as an editor on the wiki, you are obligated to follow them. Think of the policies as the Constitution of your country; if you are in the country, you are subject to its laws, whether or not you agree with their existence or enforcement. This is not really the place to argue about policy; if you would like to see a specific change to any of the wiki's policies, please create a thread on the Consensus Track board of the Forums and we will discuss it as a community. —Atvelonis (talk) 05:42, November 16, 2019 (UTC)
A word of advice from Shakespeare: brevity is the soul of wit. I have almost no time for the wiki right now, and you make it pretty tough for me to respond to your questions adequately when each of them is 1000 words long. Keep it short whenever you can. (It's a little ironic for me to say that, but it's still the truth.)
Pages titled "enemies" aren't going to be deleted; they serve a purpose for SEO. However, we are in the process of removing references to the word "enemy" in section headers, infoboxes, etc., because it is completely artificial. The game files don't use the term; they sort entities as either characters or creatures. I've transcluded the table from Creatures (Blades) onto Enemies (Blades) and separated the hostile characters into their own table on that page. The tables can be on there, they just have to be organized in ways that the game uses, not ways that players/editors invented.
If you joined our Discord server (literally just click on that link and make an account) then I think many of the ways the community operates would become much more clear to you. The moot procedure is explained on its project page. This policy about enemies can only be changed further if you create a thread on the Consensus Track board of the Forums, since a moot decision cannot override a previous moot decision. But I think there is not really a good reason to change the policy here seeing as your issue has been resolved. —Atvelonis (talk) 05:39, November 21, 2019 (UTC)
Dutyclaus, you need to heed our advice. We are tired of your long winded nonsensical ramblings and your refusal of the advice we offer you which will help you become a better editor. Your attitude of entitlement and your insults toward the staff will not help you. There are other non-staff editors who come around here quite often who do great work, and do not have issues with us, or our policies. The Cat Master (talk) 08:38, November 21, 2019 (UTC)

Use of the Attention template Edit

Hello,
I would just like to ask you not to insert the {{Attention}} template onto non-articles, given that the category is reserved exclusively for articles that require some sort of improvement. This does not include user talk pages or blogs, as you have used them on this blog and The Cat Master's talk page. What happens when you add this template to a page is it automatically adds the page to the Articles Needing Attention. Neither of these are suitable for that category and so you should only apply them to actual articles when it is appropriate.
Thank you,
Grey Fox (talk) 14:34, November 23, 2019 (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.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+