Welcome, Sports72Xtrm!

Skyrim Logo Large.png

Hello Sports72Xtrm, 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.

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

Talos page[edit source]


I don't care if it doesn't suit you. The lore itself proves "The Talos Mistake to be wrong. There's nothing speculative about the removal of that line. 

  • Tullius
  • All Legates
  • The Great War
  • Vittoria Vici
  • The Thalmor
  • Hold Guards

All of these charactacters, factions and the book prove The Talos Mistake wrong, the book is wrong and is no more but a way to make the peace last a tiny fracture longer. Just deal with it and move on. 

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

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

Personally, I do like to provide all relevant sides of the narrative in articles, even if they are untrue; I simply include statements supporting and refuting everything to provide a balanced approach. That said, much of the time it's difficult to include that amount of information, as doing so often takes away from the topic at hand and ends up getting really off-track. My impression was that the source you gave was not particularly trustworthy, but I will take a closer look this weekend. —Atvelonis (talk) 04:15, October 29, 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to look at it over the weekend. I've been rather busy lately and most likely won't have any time until Wednesday, and even then I don't know. I would recommend you speak to a patroller such as CarloV3r or The Cat Master to rewrite all of this edit war stuff in a balanced way. —Atvelonis (talk) 18:04, October 31, 2016 (UTC)

Civil War lore[edit source]


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

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

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

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

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

My take

  1. Because the White-Gold Concordat was enforced by Imperial Law the only way the Jarls could really protest it would be to openly defy the Empire. This is what "chests of gold" were for. They were compensation so that the Imperial vassals wouldn't feel cheated by an otherwise tyrannical edict and possibly revolt.
  2. This is one of those things that's really up to opinion, similar to the old 'should the Byzantines really be considered the Roman Empire' disagreement. It should by noted however that in both Lord of Souls and the Infernal City, the Septim Empire is occasionally referred to as the "old Empire."
  3. I'm not even sure why this last point is up for debate. It's made fairly clear that the Thalmor do not wish either side to win the war. Arguing 'which side winning is worse for the Thalmor' is entirely presumptuous.
Dovahsebrom (talk) 20:16, November 2, 2016 (UTC)

Article editing[edit source]

Hi Sports72Xtrm,

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

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

Improvement[edit source]


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

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

Re:Ulfric Stormcloak revert[edit source]

The edit wasn't important enough. It's adding a pointless word. "Parasitical" describes it perfectly fine. Edits that don't add enough to be important aren't required, simple as that. I don't feel like turning this into an edit war, so I suggest we just leave it as it was before. It's a Featured Article, so it's good as it is. Ottoman Hold Message Me My Action 02:15:04 November 19, 2016

"Whether you judge it worthy of note is irrelevant" - Incorrect. Unworthy edits can be considered edit warring. Either way, I won't pursue this any further today, as we don't need another edit war. I've brought it up to some other staff members, so it'll be settled soon enough. Ottoman Hold Message Me My Action 03:11:22 November 19, 2016
Please, I don't get triggered by anything on the internet. I know more about editing than you, so yes, I do know when an edit is unneeded. "It makes me question the impartiality of this wiki and the abuse of power by its mods." - One edit is reverted and then suddenly mods are corrupt and the wiki is impartial? That's ridiculous. As a Staff Member, it is my job to make sure the wiki runs smoothly. Even though the mainspace is not as much of a concern to my job as to a patroller, it still remains that staff should survey the recent edits. If you think the revert was unwarranted, then you don't know about a user named Erik the Mad, who constantly reverted edits for little to no reason. Ottoman Hold Message Me My Action 03:29:41 November 19, 2016
Well, at least you've read the editing guidelines. However, I did not violate said policy in anyway. It's mentioned all over the article already that he doesn't like the Empire and such. In addition, Ulfric Stormcloak is a Featured Article, and because of that, there's no reason to edit it unless there's a grammatical error, or something similar to that matter. Because it's an FA, it's perfect as it is. Not only is your edit not required, but it also is altering an article that does not need to be changed. For the Erik the Mad thing, I meant to say that in that age, many more edits were undone for much less of a reason than yours, so consider yourself lucky that your other edits have stayed. And no, I'm not suppressing an alternate point of view. I've done nothing of that such. I'm not a diehard Imperial like Jauffre, so pulling that card proves nothing, besides that you will say anything to get your way. Ottoman Hold Message Me My Action 04:25:35 November 19, 2016

Ulfric Stormcloak Article[edit source]

Hi Sports72Xtrm,

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

"Biased nonsense"[edit source]

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

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

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

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

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

What you claim is biased nonsense.[edit source]

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

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

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

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

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

Re:What is the Problem[edit source]

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

Markarth Incident[edit source]

Cut the nonsense, Sports.

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

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

Remember the massacre of Karthwasten? Nobody in Karthwasten speaks of it. Just because it's not spoken about doesn't mean it can't be true. He says we as a reference to himself and Markarth's noble family, not the Empire.

"When the Empire lost the Reach during the Great War, we became desperate. We promised a group of Nord militia free worship in exchange for their help retaking the Hold. Then the Elves found out about it. We were forced to arrest all of them. Ulfric Stormcloak, their leader, used the whole thing as proof that the Empire had abandoned Skyrim. The Rebels called it "The Markarth Incident." It was the founding day for the Stormcloaks, and where this war really started.." -Igmund

So no, it was between Ulfric and Igmund's family, not the Empire. The only reason he says "we" later on is because the LDB asks "Why did you arrest the Nord militia?", which was something both Igmund's forces and the Imperial forces did. Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 14:55, December 28, 2016 (UTC)

Ask the same thing about the Massacre at Karthwasten, nobody in that town speaks of it, neither does Igmund, by your logic, it didn't occur. Did you forget why Braig's daughter was killed? Let me cite the dialogue: "But my little Aethra didn't want to see her papa leave her. She pleaded to the Jarl to take her instead. And after they made me watch as her head rolled off the block, they threw me in here anyway, to dig up their silver." He was meant to be executed for working with the Forsworn, his daughter just took his place. And just because they died later on doesn't mean it didn't happen prior. "Those of us who didn't run were executed, except for me, my king and a handful of others."-Nepos the Nose Which does confirm the Bear of Markarth, seeing as Braig was part of "a handful of others".

Why wouldn't anyone at Karthwasten mention the massacre if it were true? And what about Nepos? Seems pretty obvious that he knows what he talks about. Not to forget, you don't speak of that which you don't want to be reminded of. Just like how Jewish survivors of the Holocaust won't come up to you and talk about it like it's a day-to-day subject, they would only talk when asked. Same thing applies here.

There's no reason to doubt it, since it's largely confirmed. Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 15:20, December 28, 2016 (UTC)

You can't just say it's invalid because of your bias. Sources in the game confirm the Bear of Markarth, I don't care what your bias says, you shouldn't spread lies on the wiki.

And no, I don't accuse you of denying the holocaust, if you know how to read. I merely point out that just because people don't talk about a dark page in history doesn't mean it didn't happen.

There are no sources stating the Empire supported it from the beggining. Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 15:40, December 28, 2016 (UTC)

Edit Warring[edit source]

Hey Sports, I notice that you have been reverting Jauffre's edits, without giving any reason why or talking to him about it on his talkpage. It would be much preferred for you to ask about it on his tp instead of reverting first, as this reverting and edit warring may not only lead either of you to a block, but it is likely to lockdown the article itself, which has already happened for the same reasons. And if neither of you see eye to eye, I recommend asking for other people's opinions on chat.

I'd also recommend to not edit any pages relating to the Civil War etc. for awhile, as the situation is not as simple as just one or the other side being right, and will need an outside point of view to check sources and see what's going on, since information can be interpreted in many different ways. Hope you understand. - Kora Stormblade (talk) 22:09, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

Re:Windhelm[edit source]

Hey Sports,

I think you're correct here. I don't really see the connection between the Decree of Monument and what Blademaster is claiming, the book talks about giving refuge to the Dunmer of Morrowind after the eruption, Solstheim isn't mentioned in it. The content you added could be phrased a little better though. Make it focus on Dunmner, not immigrants. The quote from Viola Giordano should also be included.—CarloV3r (talk) 21:19, January 31, 2017 (UTC)

Re: Mede Dynasty factual conflicts[edit source]

I'll try to go through the article now. I have a lot of work to do elsewhere on the wiki though (mainly checking edits and maintenance), so I can't guarantee that I'll actually get anything done in a timely manner. —Atvelonis (talk) 01:21, February 12, 2017 (UTC)

As I am rather occupied with Recent Changes (and will be for quite some time), I expect that I won't get around to reviewing the page anytime soon. However, Aramithius offered to take a look at it later today. —Atvelonis (talk) 17:51, February 12, 2017 (UTC)

Bias[edit source]

Knock it off Sports, you're the cause of numerous blocks due to your bias. The Bear of Markarth isn't biased since it's proven right ingame. Your claims are unsourced, mine are, just stop it for once.

And what on earth do you mean with your "Non-factual theories about the timeline?" nonsense?

You refuse the facts because they don't suit your agenda, just stop. Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 12:37, February 12, 2017 (UTC)

And stop with your edit spamm. Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 15:26, February 12, 2017 (UTC)

Multiple Edits[edit source]

Hey Sports. I'd just like to note that a number of your edits could have been consolidated. We all appreciate you adding those references, but it would be better if you added all of them in one to two edits, so you don't clog up the activity feed. Thanks! Ottoman Hold Message Me My Action 09:05:06 February 16, 2017

Hey, keep up the good work, just remember the idiotic politics around here. S'why a smarmy cretin like Jauffre gets away with being full of crap 23.9/7. But since he plays 'the game', he's able to keep admins more on his side than yours. Keep cool and carry on. —This unsigned comment is by BeastOfWar (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
(Sorry to hijack the talk page) I'm not contesting Sports' content, I was only noting the fact that he/she made a number of edits that could have been consolidated. Don't misunderstand me, BeastOfWar, for complaining, because I'm not. Sports is actually doing a decent job at adding references to places that need them. Ottoman Hold Message Me My Action 10:01:03 February 23, 2017

BOM[edit source]

Just stop it.

Those things were entirely unrelated to the book, they need to be placed on the articles they belong to. The very fact that your claims were unsourced was already enough evidence to throw them out the window.

Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 23:26, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

Re: The bear of Markarth trivia[edit source]

The reason I removed the section on The Bear of Markarth but not The Talos Mistake was because I was simply unaware that there was a "Reliability" section on the latter page. You can't honestly expect me to know the contents of all 51,000 content pages off the top of my head. At the time that edit was made, I was taking a break from Recent Changes, so that particular edit was not reviewed by me.

I seriously could not care less which side of the war is "correct"; it's a fictional war in a video game, and purporting that I have an agenda favoring the Empire is ridiculous. I'm going to ask that you read three essays, one, two, and three, on Wikipedia. Just look at your talk page—it should be clear to you that you're taking the wiki too seriously.

I'm not trying to pick on you in particular; Jauffre (and I know he is reading this, because you two stalk each other constantly) is obviously doing the same. So to both of you: approach information on the Civil War not as "My opinion must be present on this article," and rather as, "This article needs to be approached equally from all angles." This includes viewpoints that you personally disagree with, as long as they are constructive.

I edit this wiki as a hobby, and because a million people read our articles per day, not to support a particular viewpoint on the Civil War. It is a little irritating that you boil down my goal here to "demonizing the Stormcloaks." Even if our views are not always aligned, I am not working against you, nor Jauffre, nor anyone. We may have differing opinions some of the time, but we are still working together. I have no wish to work in an uncivil environment, and I'm sure that you feel similarly.

I don't mean to sound condescending, but I'd very much appreciate it if you would take a step back before posting anything, whether it be an edit or a message to another editor, and contemplate whether or not you're taking it too far. Always remember that you very well may be incorrect in your thinking, and that editing on the wiki is not a contest. If you're willing to do so, I'm sure that we can work together much more cohesively. Thank you. —Atvelonis (talk) 04:26, March 10, 2017 (UTC)

Facts[edit source]


  • They did not alienate the Blades, for they are not an Imperial organisation, nor does the Empire run them down.
  • Only Stormcloaks, not nationalists, nor Talos worshipers.
  • Most of which was already conqeured, Redguards are to blame here, not the Empire.
  • Tried to kill him because of the Stormcloaks.

Ulfric: His deposing of the Forsworn proves very little, seeing as the Forsworn are nothing near their original strenght, they feated the city garrison of Markarth when it was in full force, that goes to show that they were petty. And good luck maintaining a navy without funds.

Brunwulf: Windhelm lacks the funds; this is in both cases, wether Stormcloak or Imperial, both need to stockpile on supplies. In Brunwulf's case it might take a while to regain supplies -- but at least he'll use them for his city, Ulfric will have to use them for a navy. At least the Empire has the funds to clean Windhelm after besieging it -- unlike the Stormcloaks have with Solitude.

Korir: Ulfric's never had any care for Winterhold, hell, he even sees Tullius' attacks on the hold as "thrown away", as petty, because he sees Winterhold as worthless. There won't be any change in relations, except for worsening of them, under Stormcloak rule between the College and the Hold.

Maven: Largely agreed, but the only reason the TG isn't destroyed yet is because of Maven, if the TG betrays her they are dead meat.

Skald: Jod, his housecarl, states that the Hold is under constant threat because Skald conscripts so many troops, if anything, it's less safe under his rule.

Brina: Agreed, though I do see her as a bit lacking in experience.

Balgruuf: The Thalmor would need evidence -- evidence that they won't get so easily, seeing as he's the Jarl and has no relics or anything. Remember how Torygg was a Talos worshiper, yet he wasn't killed by the Thalmor or anything -- and he was High King, not even Heimskr is imprisoned for Talos worship. The Thalmor do not raid supply lines nor troops of either side unless if provoked.

Dengeir: Paranoid, trusts nobody, including his best friend. If left in charge would surely doom Falkreath.

Siddgeir: Fool, spoiled brat, unable to rule properly. Still more loyal to the Empire than to the coin though.

Thongvor: Denies that the Forsworn are in the city, as well as the Forsworn Uprising of 4E 201, spreads propaganda and lies, incapable ruler.

Igmund: He didn't beg, Istlod did. Thalmor don't dictate his actions, if anything, he dictates them.

Idgrod: Not delusions, she knows, as proven by Diplomatic Immunity during the main questline. She can see the future.

Imperial Elisif: The Thalmor are in no position to dispose of anybody as Jarl or a court member. Stop giving them power that they don't have. Stop with the nonsense of assassinations, Tullius is the general of a Legion, he's guarded at all times.

Analyses: Under a Stormcloak Skyrim, trade is declined, war is initiated with the Thalmor, Dominion invades and allies with Forsworn, conqeurs Skyrim and waits for GW 2.0. No alliance with Hammerfell, due to the Nords holding Elinhir and half of Dragonstar, as well as the Stormcloaks not coming to their aid when they needed it. High Rock doesn't have to be cut off from Cyrodiil -- depending on Orsinium's size.

No they won't lose those, those jarls are not weak, they are loyal. The justiciars are treaty enforcers, not warriors. Mede's death isn't canon.

Also, look at the facts, the Empire is winning the Civil War, they are the stronger party:

  • General Tullius, regardless of who you join, states during Season Unending that they are pushing the Stormcloaks back well enough. (they are already overstretched though)
  • Galmar states during a conversation with Ulfric that our men (Stormcloaks) are getting massacred out there, damn Imperials.
  • Whiterun will join the Empire in the canon lore, as both questlines agree on this, giving the Empire a greater advantage.
  • Another proper Imperial army is assembling at Pale Pass and waiting for it to clear in order to march into Skyrim.
  • The Legion of Skyrim consists of locally recruited scouts and skirmishers and is still able to massacre the best the Stormcloaks have to offer. Aka, the worst of the Empire > The best of the Stormcloaks.
  • General Tullius was able to get deep into Stormcloak territory, ambush Ulfric and his top lieutenants, capture them, and escape, all without any form of resistance, meaning that the Stormcloaks are even too weak to properly guard their leader and their borders.
  • Imperials are able to infiltrate all the way up to Shor's Watchtower and take out the stationed Stormcloaks without losing a single soldier.
  • The Empire has much richer holds and more supplies.

Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 17:55, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

Oh and please, stop giving Ulfric credit for things he can't do. Stop trying to say the Empire is united. Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 19:38, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

Re:Tone[edit source]

Don't assume that I'm taking Jauffre's "side" on things and that I'm against you in some way. Or, even better, just don't assume that there are sides to begin with. In my revert, I was referring to the multiple contractions being put back together in your edit (i.e. "it is" to "it's," etc.). Yea, I accidentally also reverted something you tried to re-add from Jauffre's revert in the process. Instead of coming onto my talk page and accusing me of being biased to one side or the other, or that I think your edits are "wrong" or worse than Jauffre's, you could have just /re-added/ that bit back in.

I don't care nor do I wish to be involved in a debate about which opinion is more correct. I only care about how well-written the article is, the syntax/grammatical structure of the sentences being put on there, the tone it's using; you know, stuff that has nothing to do with the idea that a sentence is trying to convey. I'm not going to get involved with the political bits in it, so don't try and bring me into that when there's absolutely no need to. Thanks for the feedback. - Kora Stormblade (talk) 01:48, June 10, 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant - Civil War[edit source]

And why would it be relevant? Relying on a local economy is not a sign of weakness nor of losing the war, Cyrodiil didn't provide troops for the Civil War to begin with and the Civil War started in 4E 176. Also, you state a blatant lie when you say that you have to speak with Cicero, as it is found in his journals. Stop with your misinformation and irrelevant comments. Aside from that, we're speaking about outdated information, General Tullius wouldn't have been sent up to Skyrim if Cyrodiil had its own issues, nor would an Imperial army be assembling at Pale Pass if Cyrodiil itself wasn't safe. Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 09:43, June 10, 2017 (UTC)

Problems[edit source]

My problem?

Well, how most of your CW edits are not related to the CW? Or are faulty?

  • Dialogue with Imperial Legates shows that the Legion in Skyrim consists of locally recruited units.
  • The conversation between Irnskar and Bryling states exactly what I said: That she wouldn't like the news. And, since she asks for the "state of the Nords of Skyrim, not her subjects", and that she's a Stormcloak sympathizer, that all points to the Stormcloaks losing more land than they gain.
  • The Civil War has been ongoing since 4E 176, so nothing "in a span of 3 years before the Civil War broke out".
  • Cyrodiil is barely sending troops to begin with.
  • The Penitus Oculatus is nervous, nowhere is it stated why he is, stating it's because of the Stormcloaks is speculation.
  • I don't even know why you added that "short history of Cyrodiil", as it's irrelevant to the topic.

If you can explain to me how these 6 points are related to the Civil War, or accurate for that matter, please, do inform me. Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 15:34, June 10, 2017 (UTC)

  • And what does that short history of Cyrodiil prove in regards to the Civil War?
  • The war with the Thalmor ruined everything in Cyrodiil.... And now? How is that related to Skyrim again?
  • Is Cicero in Cyrodiil? No. When was the last time he was there? ±A year ago. When did Tullius got send to Skyrim? A few months ago. What is Tullius known for? Puting down rebellions. Is it logical to send Tullius to Skyrim if Cyrodiil is in strife? No it does not. Therefor you can't say that what Cicero is right just because he says it, because first of all, he hasn't been in Cyrodiil since he went to Skyrim and second of all, Tullius got send to Skyrim after Cicero came to it.
  • I didn't delete it. I moved Bryling's quote back up to the Legion's side because she's a Stormcloak sympathizer and Irnskar states that she wouldn't like the news of the Holds changing, aka, the Stormcloaks lost land, which is backed up by Tullius' quote.
  • I gave Jorleif his own line, as it's a seperate argument, I did not remove it.

Also, what about my Legate point? Or the Penitus Oculatus? Or Cyrodiil not barely sending troops to begin with? Or the start of the Civil War? Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 15:42, June 10, 2017 (UTC)

  • "Many condemn the Stormcloaks, but I refuse. There is honor in fighting for what you believe." -Aka, she doesn't condemn them

"The Stormcloaks only rebel because the Empire uses Skyrim as its personal larder. The more they take, the more support the rebels gain!" -Lies "I'm not just talking about my subjects. I'm talking about my people: the proud Nords of Skyrim." - Her subjects = Imperials of Haafingar, they are doing fine. "the proud Nords of Skyrim" are not, if that isn't the Stormcloaks, I don't know what is. (This is in the dialogue with Irnskar)


"Bryling's obsession with honor and tradition is quaint... But politically irrelevant." -Erikur So Bryling has an obsession with honor and tradition? Like the Stormcloaks supposedly have? Surely you don't think this is a coincidence?

    • Don't compare Bryling with Rikke. Unlike Rikke, who doesn't state that she sympathizes herself, Bryling clearly speaks sympathy for the Stormcloaks, and not the "just sympathy", but the concerned kind.
  • Nowhere does it state on the Civil War page that Cyrodiil is sending a lot of troops to Skyrim. Aside from an Imperial army at Pale Pass which, mind you, is properly sourced. I also never once claimed that Cyrodiil "is supporting the campaign or has ample reinforcements", not sure where you got that from. Just because the Legion relies on the local economy of Skyrim is not a sign of weakness.

"Is only when I'll relent" If you're adding misinformation it should simply be removed. Period.

PS: You still haven't adressed the Penitus Oculatus, Legate dialogue, Cyrodiil barely sending reinforcements from the start, nor the start of the Civil War points. Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 15:59, June 10, 2017 (UTC)

"You said it yourself, Bryling's subjects and her power comes from the Imperial supporting Hjaalmar. It would be against her best interests to root for the Stormcloaks since as she logically says, if Ulfric continues to beat them" She knows who her subjects are, and that's not what she interested in. She only speaks "pro-Imperial" talk with her lover who "surprise surprise" also happens to be an Imperial supporter. She never speaks positively of the Empire, only when she happens to come across the one she loves. Coincide? I think not. She doesn't want to break up her relations with Falk, that's why she's on his side, common sense really.

"Proud Nords", which faction is the only one that would use such a phrase? The Stormcloaks, come on. The Empire doesn't need this "racial bias", they'd just call them "the people of Skyrim", or "the citizens of Skyrim" hell, even "the Nords of Skyrim", the word "proud" is irrelevant. Aside from that, why would that even be remotely related to the Civil War if it were about either side of the war? And why "wouldn't she like the news"? Makes no sense.

So wait, hold on a second. You're telling me that a bodyguard force for the Emperor knows more about the situation between the Stormcloaks and Imperials than the bloody field commander for the Stormcloaks? Surely you jest? Does it occur to you that those Penitus Oculatus members came in advance of the Emperor's ship? That they were related to the Emperor's guard? Hell, they are probably reffering to the fact that the Civil Was has been ongoing for +- 25 years and it's still not won.

It doesn't matter if "Cyrodiil may be too hurt to supply reinforcements", as the current troops of the Legion are doing the job just fine. Hell, they haven't been getting that many reinforcements regardless, but you choose to ignore that to make a claim that doesn't exist.

My deluded narrative? Who is the one dismissing the ingame sources? You are. You've done that on several occasions. You have no courtesy Sports, you refuse to listen to the facts. You lack common sense. Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 16:46, June 10, 2017 (UTC)

That was a bit rude on my part, apologies. Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 21:27, June 13, 2017 (UTC)

Duel[edit source]


I'm not looking for another Edit War, so let's get this over with quick and civil.

We have the Crown of Freydis, which in English says that The battle was short and to the point: Asurn was struck down., the French one states Le combat fut de courte durée et son issue indiscutable: Asurn fut terrassé. Meaning:

Le: The
combat: battle
fut: was
de: of
courte: short
durée: duration
et: and
son: its
issue: result
indiscutable: indisputable:
Asurn: Asurn
fut: was
terrassé: overthrown (literal meaning: floored, aka, made to fall to the floor)

As for Ulfric's duel. The last duel prior to Ulfric that we know of is Jorunn's duel, that's around two eras ago. In that time, the tradition became so outdated that Ulfric himself calls it the traditional way and Balgruuf calls it the old way, it's obvious that it's not used anymore as of the Fourth Era, at least not prior to Ulfric.

Roggvir was a gate guard, not a studied man in the history of the Nords, his knowledge of Nord tradition is likely not that well. And no, Roggvir did not witness it. He knew that Ulfric challenged Torygg, he knew that Ulfric killed Torygg. He claims it was in "single combat", proven wrong by Ulfric's and Balgruuf's claim that it was a traditional duel. He was not there when it happened. Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 18:28, August 8, 2017 (UTC)

RE: Dueling[edit source]

The wiki is in English, the games are not per se. ESO got published in English, French and German. Therefor, using sources in one of those other languages when the English one gives multiple possibilities is justified. It doesn't matter if you don't speak French, get someone who does.

Torygg didn't get knocked unconcious, he died by the Voice. Or do you really believe the words of Ulfric, while the entire court, a Stormcloak sympathizer and Torygg disagree?

There isn't evidence at all that these duels are lethal. An arena is not evidence of duel customs.

Nords of the Fourth Era barely hold true to any of their own culture. They ditched their own pantheon and removed various traditions. You can't use two commoners as evidence for a duel between nobility, the last of which occured in the Second Era.

She's his bloody sister, of course she'll have a bias, is this really the best source you're using?

"So why would I take all this evidence and ignore it for your interpretation of a French version of the game I have never seen and your history of spinning half-truths to demonize Ulfric Stormcloak." Because the French version of the game is an official version of the game. Licensed and published by Bethesda, and it's not much of an interpetation when it's the literal wording of the book. Also, I don't spin "half-truths", let alone "demonize" Ulfric. I take the lore, I back the Imperials because I know my lore. This has nothing to do with bias, all of my claims about Ulfric are sourced, therefor justified.

Also, it doesn't matter what you accept, what matters is what the lore states. You're using sources from the Fourth Era -- when the duel is old and traditional, I use sources from the Second Era, during which it was still common practice. If you don't see which one of these is more reliable, I don't know why I should continue.

PS: It's not much of fanboying as recognising which side is the morally right and millitary superior one, the Imperial Legion in this case. Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 21:55, August 8, 2017 (UTC)

Battle For Whiterun[edit source]

I locked the Battle for Whiterun page due to the edit war between you and Blademaster Jauffre. If you two continue to do that in articles you risk a block. The Cat Master (talk) 13:17, September 29, 2017 (UTC)

To elaborate: if you feel that Jauffre has made an inaccurate edit, I strongly recommend that you come to an agreement with him and/or an administrator about the article prior to undoing his revision: edit wars are something to be avoided whenever possible. Discussing these things on talk pages can take a little while, but it's not like we're in a rush. —Atvelonis (talk) 02:23, September 30, 2017 (UTC)

Nords Arise[edit source]

"He traded our god for peace." That's not Torygg, the treaty was signed before he became High King.

Also, I'm not removing evidence. Nords Arise does not state he was a Nord. Only Heimskr does. Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 17:47, November 7, 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. The book does not state that at all. It mentions Istolds doings and writes them off on Torygg... Also, it says "traded" not "trading", meaning it happened once. How can an occuring event be temporary?
Nords Arise does not even mention Talos is a Nord. It only states he came from Skyrim. Don't bring that nonsense up, the Nords didn't worship Talos until the Fourth Era, so much for "venerating him so much"... Talos is not his birthname though... his birthname is Hjalti, which only the theory that he came from High Rock supports... He didn't grew up in Skyrim either; as he learned the ways of the sword in Alcaire. Knowing the Voice is not unique to Nords either... especially when Dragonborn...
Hating Orcs is a typical trait amongst Bretons, and there's already further implications of him being a Breton, this only further backing it.
Just because the Nords recently started worshiping him and such does not mean that just because they like him he's a Nord.
Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 18:05, November 7, 2017 (UTC)
Just because you're born somewhere does not mean you're the native race...
Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 18:08, November 7, 2017 (UTC)
Right... Only problem here is that Nords Arise does not say he's a Nord.
Besides, the whole tale of him being "from Skyrim", has already been mentioned here:
Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 18:13, November 7, 2017 (UTC)
People believe Talos being a Nord, sure! But then add said people as a source. I think you're entirely misinterpeting what I'm saying, it's not that I'm against puting every pov on a page, but I'm against adding sources that don't back said pov. You know what happens when sources aren't added for claims?
That happens.
Don't come to me asking why we have these OOG sources, I'm personally against them.
I suggest taking it up with one of the Admins for that.
Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 18:27, November 7, 2017 (UTC)
Although, the history Wulfharth's legendary wars with the orcs imply Nords disliked Orsimer as well. Utterly false. Ysmir fought with Malacath, not with Orcs.
Stop pushing your PoV, Sports.
Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 18:36, November 7, 2017 (UTC)

Re: Tiber Septim[edit source]

We generally don't include "Reliability" sections on book articles: it's better to allow readers to reach their own conclusions in these cases. As a side note, it's true that the Imperial Library is not a site owned by Bethesda, but its sources are very highly regarded. If you've heard of Lady Nerevar (engaged/married to Michael Kirkbride), she's been active on the Library since at least 2010. Another librarian, Tailin Sero, is on our Discord. If you want to contest the validity of any of their information (such as the Kier-jo quotes), I'd suggest you take it up with one of them. —Atvelonis (talk) 21:10, November 7, 2017 (UTC)

Dialogue[edit source]

Hey Sports,

I saw you add dialogue to various pages, before I start, I want to thank you for doing so.

As for what my message is about, I saw you add multiple lines to the dialogue when dialogue is opened, like this:

"These Thalmor know how to treat a guest."
"A ruler is entitled to luxury, don't you think? The Thalmor understand that."
"Why would anyone join the Stormcloaks? They have a fraction of the Empire's wealth and power."
"If I had my way, I'd spend all my time at parties like this, and none of it dealing with the common rabble."

On the Siddgeir page.

I felt like letting you know that adding one "head line" is enough when opening dialogue. The others should be moved to the quotes section.

The other thing, while it's probably something you did without realising it, is that small quests should have their own diabox. Like on the Dengeir of Stuhn page.

When you first added the dialogue, you included the dialogue from Some Light Theft in the default dialogue. Quest and normal dialogue should be seperated if possible.

If you have any questions, let me know.

Happy editing,
Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 14:26, November 9, 2017 (UTC)

Moot[edit source]


Nowhere is it stated that just the Imperial Jarls want the Moot, nor that the Stormcloaks ones refuse it to meet. Legate Rikke states that "not everyone's agreed to the Moot", and Ulfric's the only one that we know of that refuses it.

I'll leave this here now, and wait for your response, before deciding how to change it. Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 21:26, November 18, 2017 (UTC)

Rikke means "Nords" as a general term, not a specific one, as she's referring with it to Tullius' line: "Don't you Nords (Notice how it's a term referring to all Nords?) put any stock in your own traditions? I thought the Moot chose the king. We're backing Elisif. When the Moot meets, they'll do the sensible thing.".
Ulfric is not outnumbered, as Whiterun is neutral. 4 Imperial, 4 Stormcloak, 1 neutral. That's the fairest Moot you're going to get. But Ulfric won't have it.
It means the Jarls are upset that not every Jarl wants to support same person for High King and that they want a new Moot to settle it once and for all. Nothing to do with specific Jarls. After all, Laila Law-Giver, who is a Stormcloak Jarl no less, does not sounds faithful for a future with Ulfric as King. Neither does Dengeir sound very supportive of the man, granted he only becomes Jarl later on.....
We only know of Ulfric denying the Moot, nobody else.
Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 00:52, November 19, 2017 (UTC)

Quick formatting notes[edit source]

Hey Sports! Hope you're having a good day,

I noticed you've been using <br> on some of your diaboxes instead of <br />. Awhile back (2015ish) we decided to start using <br />. Just wanted to mention it to you. Also, as one more quick note, we use the medium dash (–) not the large dash (—). These are both really minor things, but it helps out in the long run when everything is consistent. Feel free to message me back if you need to, and thanks. The dialogue is looking pretty great other than this. – The Crusader of Truth (talkchat) 16:53, November 24, 2017 (UTC)

Dialogue[edit source]

Have a fishy stick!
Blademaster Jauffre has awarded you a Fishy stick! For your great contributions in the dialogue department.

Hey Sports,

Thanks for adding dialogue on Ulfric Stormcloak's page. As you may have seen, some dialogue is also put in this [1] part of the article.

I was wondering if you'd be so kind as to add them to actual quest-tablets, like you did with The Way of the Voice?

Let me know what you think about it on my talkpage, Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 19:16, November 25, 2017 (UTC)

Kind of like how I did it here:
Is that clear enough? Or would you prefer me to make a start on Ulfric's page instead?
Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 20:15, November 25, 2017 (UTC)

Condensing edits[edit source]

Hi Sports, when you're making changes to a page, can you please try to keep your revisions to as few edits as possible? It's really time-consuming for our patrollers (and myself!) to come through twenty edits to one page, compared to checking only one or two edits with the same content. If this is just the way you're used to editing then that's fine; I would recommend using a sandbox, which you can set up as a sub-page of your profile (e.g. User:Atvelonis/Sandbox). Thanks. —Atvelonis (talk) 02:12, May 16, 2018 (UTC)

Reference reuse[edit source]

Hi Sports, when you're using a reference multiple times in the article you don't have to write the full thing out with every use of the reference. You can just do this:

  • First usage: <ref name="BHE4">''[[Brief History of the Empire, Book IV]]''</ref>
  • Later usage: <ref name="BHE4"/>

Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. —Atvelonis (talk) 15:16, June 11, 2018 (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.