FANDOM

Italics Edit

Hi Ft763, please do not use italics or other markup for emphasis on content articles, per our style and formatting guidelines. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. Thanks. —Atvelonis (talk) 16:45, May 31, 2018 (UTC)

Our policy on basic text formatting also refers to bold text—not just italics—so please do not use bold text on content articles as you did here. —Atvelonis (talk) 15:02, July 26, 2018 (UTC)

Talk archivesEdit

Hey Ft763, I'm just letting you know that I moved the message you left on this talk page, since you aren't supposed to edit archives. Don't worry if you see a talk page empty, and just leave any message you wanted in the first place, however the archive should not be altered.

Regarding your problem, your edit was removed because the page already described what you had added in another point. Sometimes other editors will leave a summary of their edits, which can be viewed both on the recent changes page (although you may need a bit of scrolling to get there) and the history of the page itself. If you are wondering why your edit was changed/removed, looking in these places will probably answer your questions. Rozty (talk) 17:03, July 22, 2018 (UTC)

UESP contentEdit

I noticed while doing some cross referencing for Pelagius' storm thrall that the information you added was copied word for word from UESP. When you create articles, please do not do that. That doesn't look on our end. The Cat Master (talk) 07:53, July 26, 2018 (UTC)

Have you been reading these messages? You have already been informed about how the use of UESP content is not something that should be done, but the section you added here is taken word for word out of their page. Please refrain from doing so in the future, this is not something that should happen at all. Rozty (talk) 06:10, October 8, 2018 (UTC)
For clarity: our guidelines on sourcing (see also: attribution) state clearly that information from the UESP is not to be added to TESWiki. There are two reasons for this:
  1. We have a mutual agreement with the UESP not to use each other's content. Doing so is lazy and does not reflect well upon us, so you should avoid it.
  2. Even if we had no such agreement in place, the UESP is not considered a reliable source of information, or at least not one reliable enough to be cited in a mainspace article. You may be surprised to hear that their articles contain about as many errors as ours, simply due to the nature of wiki editing. It is therefore preferable to test things in-game or with the Creation Kit yourself instead of using the UESP as a resource.
I hope you understand the reasoning behind this guideline. If you continue to ignore it then we may have to issue a temporary block. But it should not have to come to that. Just try not to rely on other websites and there should be no issues. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. Thanks. —Atvelonis (talk) 15:08, November 12, 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopedic tone Edit

Hello Ft763, thank you for the edits lately. I wanted to let you know that some of your changes to the wording of articles have been a little bit too flowery for the encyclopedia. For example, on your recent edit to the Jaree-Ra page, adding the phrase "thus exacting revenge" to the end of the second paragraph of the quest description is not a neutral way of conveying information. Some players may not consider their actions to be revenge per se; even for those who do, it does not add anything useful to the paragraph. Encyclopedic writing doesn't necessarily have to be super dry—you can still write in a way that is interesting—but it has to be neutral (and useful), and should not read as though a person is expressing an opinion. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. —Atvelonis (talk) 15:00, November 19, 2018 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.