User talk:Elliot/Archives/2009/December

Today is Sunday, December 15, 2024, and the current time is 14:46 EST. There are currently 106,837 articles on the UESPWiki.

EvidenceEdit

Those links were evidence provide to defend a person who may have not deserved to have his block extended. Yes, that blog has some foul language, but UESP documents games with full-body nudity and Oblivion is rated "M" for "Mature". Also, anyone could tell that the author of the blog is using hatred and ad hominem in his arguments; those are signs that point out to readers that the author shouldn't be trusted. I don't see the problem with providing those links for the benefit of a person who may not have deserved a block. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 20:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

People with whom the argument concerns itself know how to find it. We don't need to be propagating a site that attacks the wiki. –Elliot ^talk 20:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, just as long as they know where to find it. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 20:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) The discussion has been had before, Michael, and the general agreement is that we won't allow links to that site simply based on the foul language and other things you mention; the fact that it attacks us in particular, while obviously undesirable, is not relevant to our reasons not to allow links to it. If you'd like to dispute the issue, it's probably best to take it to the Admin Noticeboard or perhaps the Community Portal, since it wasn't Elliot's decision alone. All that being said, it's fine to quote replies that were made there, as long as you give the author proper attribution, of course. —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 20:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

How do I provide attributions without providing the URL's? --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 20:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I advise just mentioning the name. We all know where to find it. –Elliot ^talk 20:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 20:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

MorrowindEdit

Hey, Elliot, I've been looking over Morrowind the past couple of days, and I'm thinking about getting it for the PC. I've played and beat Oblivion and I liked it. I leaning towards getting it, but I'm not totally convinced. I hear the graphics may not be better than Oblivion's but the quests are better. So, do you think I should get Morrowind, too?PATE KNUCKLEHEAD 22:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the content of the game is superior to Oblivion. If you can get over the inferior graphics, you will really enjoy it. –Elliot ^talk 22:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I can overlook the graphics, so whats better on Morrowind than Oblivion?PATE KNUCKLEHEAD 22:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You should look into the Morrowind Graphics Extender, which will help a lot. Morrowind doesn't hold your hand. They just tell you "Go find me this book, I don't know exactly where it is, but that isn't my problem". It is not like that for every quest, but for a good chunk. And there is no fast travel, so the land will seem a lot bigger. And the Main Story is rather amazing if you ask me, and it's a little bit less cliche than Oblivion's. –Elliot ^talk 22:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Good, I never like fast travel anyway, I don't know why, but it just seemed unreal for RPGs to fast travel. So that mod upgrades the graphics and some gameplay on Morrowind? — Unsigned comment by PATE KNUCKLEHEAD (talk • contribs) at 22:55 on 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and there are other mods that will enhance gameplay. –Elliot ^talk 22:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I just watched the beginning part of Morrowind and I think I'll like Morrowind. — Unsigned comment by PATE KNUCKLEHEAD (talk • contribs) at 23:10 on 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yay!Edit

Woohoo! —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 11:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I had a feeling you would like that. I was planning on making one that came from off the left of the screen slowly and just covered the entire page for a few moments. But... that might be a tad distasteful :). –Elliot ^talk 11:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No comment. :Þ —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 22:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Since it was removed from ...Edit

All still-relevant portions reposted here for your convenience, with the attack-like aspects of the wording altered as requested by another user.

To Elliot....

First of all, just so you know, I have made too many contributions to 'this' Wiki site (anonymously) over the last 3 years to count, and have never (and still don't) had the need to be edited before (due to my thourough research, proper spelling, accurate information due to my 3,000 hours of playtime between this and Morrowind, /etc.), so that is why I responded as I did.

Please do not change my edits any more, without at least verifying the reasoning with which you base such changes. The information I worked hard to include here is accurate, and is not found elsewhere on this site, and (for more reasons than I care to list) therefore belongs where I placed it. The 'places' page is (in part) a mess that not only does not include any of my added info, but also includes many places that can't be included in the 367 findable/countable total, and beyond that is confusing to say the least.

Especially due to the fact that it includes no count totals and includes 2 places that are improperly listed in the wrong places... - namely it includes Dasek Moor under forts when it is identified on the map as a mine, and it includes Vahtacen as an Ayleid Ruin whereas it is identified as a cave on the in-game map.

See how confusing that can be for the wiki users ? Do some research next time b4 u make edits based on a clearly inaccurate basis. Take your own advice (on the talk page of the user who deleted my attack-like rebuttal from the main page), and "once someone has reverted something several times, just leave it as it is to prevent a war in the pages".

In any case (not that I have to justify my actions to you or anyone else here), I am clearly right in this matter. Correct the problems on the Places pages if you want to contribute something useful, or change something deserving to be changed.

One other useful thing you can do is add this 100% completion guide to the top of the main Oblivion Wiki page, where more people will be more likely to find it, rather (or in addition to) than where it is now (a link in just one place, hidden within another link near the very end of the page ?)

Signed -- The True Oblivion Master.

PS: Some of the information that you kept adding back in (as a result of your reverting my additions) was/is irrelevant/in-accurate, and should also be left the way it is now, with those things remaining edited out (unless you can prove otherwise, which isn't likely). — Unsigned comment by 68.215.87.128 (talk) on 10 Decembr 2009

Frankly, I don't care how many hours you logged into the game. It matters not the instant you push "Save page". As you see every time you begin to edit a page: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here. Anyone is permitted to edit, remove, tweak, reword, expand upon, or complete anything you post on this wiki. One thing you cannot do is tell other editors what they can and cannot edit.

And for your own information, I removed it twice over a two day period: hardly an edit war, so don't accuse me as such. "One other useful thing you can do is add this 100% completion guide to the top of the main Oblivion Wiki page." No, I don't do work for people who insult me. –Elliot ^talk 04:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well said, Elliot. In terms of linking 100% Completion somewhere more prominent, few people have a signficant interest in true 100% completion. Ignoring talk pages and the like, I counted 10 pages that it was linked on including being the very first section on Oblivion:Things to Do When You're Bored. I think that's plenty of coverage, myself, though I could perhaps see it being added as a See Also somewhere like the Quests page or one or two other locations of that nature. —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 04:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

My editsEdit

Thank you for being civil about your requests; however, it is rather difficult to decide whether or not something I want to add deserves an edit or not. For example, Wikipedia, which most people will automatically compare this to, has rules about notability, but they only refer to what deserves an entire article, not a simple edit to an existing article, and even then, the guidelines set forth are, themselves, rather ambiguous (e.g. significant coverage; how much coverage is significant?).

If you were to create a policy article similar to this one that established some bright line rules for what does, and does not, deserve to be included in an article, then this sort of thing would happen a LOT less, not just with me, but with everyone else. To be honest, I make a lot of these edits on faith, because I know that, since they are not vandalism, the worst that can happen is that they get reverted, so I roll the dice.

Even if you do create a policy page like that, make sure it is bright line! For example, you mentioned that I make a lot of opinionated edits, but almost everything a human says has some kind of bias in it, so you need to give a little leeway, otherwise no edits will ever occur, because requiring absolutely NO opinions in ANYTHING they say would be like having to convict a criminal beyond a shadow, as opposed to reasonable, doubt (meaning, it can be done, but it's not going to happen just any day of the week). What is, and isn't, an opinion? What is, and isn't, significant coverage? What is, and isn't, a neutral point of view (e.g. the Wikipedia article on false advertising is almost entirely designed to make the merchants look like big, bad, greedy bastards who don't care about anything but money, yet it still gets an article to itself)?

I can stop making frivolous edits once I have clear-cut instructions on what edits to make, but I must request you to meet me in the middle, here.Dstebbins 14:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It is just basically a feeling between whether or not it should be included. There is no define line, just define common sense. Here are so edits I reverted and my explanation:

[1]: First off, you can't even divide by 0. Secondly, they only have an the true value of the gold they are worth, which is the value of the enchantment. We could get into situational values and other things of the sort, but that isn't what the wiki is for (situational value is just that: situational).

[2]: This is opinion, and other factors supersede the need to mention it. Magicka restores over time (for non-Atronach characters), so why don't we say the same thing. And then you have the wording: desperation. That seems rather extreme, since it is again vaguely situational.

[3]: This one is easy: the talk pages aren't forums. They aren't intended for you to suggest using the console and saying it would be a lot easier than actually playing the game (otherwise, why would we even bother having articles on character creation?).

[4]: Why is there a need to mention this? Again, mentioning the 100% is kind of a deterrent to experienced editors. I know I get annoyed when someone tells me to basically shut down one aspect of the game that makes it more realistic. Yes, that is opinion, but we try to avoid stuff like this.

Just a few of the many, but hopefully over time you can get a better understanding of what should go in. Have fun. –Elliot ^talk 21:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let me try and justify this.

You CAN divide by zero, no matter what they teach you in elementary school. They do it all the times in physics (e.g. the singularity of a black hole has infinite gravity because it has the finite mass of a star crammed into a point of zero size). Also, since things like gold, mages hoods, and permanent bound items that are enchanted, have zero weight, but not zero value, you can hold an INFINITE number of them, limited only by the ability of your computer to process them.

If fatigue naturally regenerates at ten per second unless you're running and are less than 100 athletics, then it regenerates rather quickly, doesn't it? So, unless you're down to single digit fatigue points, you should save your magicka and potions for something a bit more reliable, like restore health. Sell 99% of your restore fatigue potions for cash, and only keep that 1% that you don't sell for those emergency situations.

You mentioned "experienced editors" already know this, but what about those who aren't editing, and just reading this wiki for gaming strategy advice? The only part that I can see you claiming as an opinion is "Getting 100% resist magic is well worth the effort." Everything else about my edit was 100% fact: Tell me, aside from good spells being resisted, which has been patched up by Bethesda themselves (not the Unofficial Oblivion Patch), what possible drawback does having immunity to magic have?

You mentioned that "with time," I can get a better understanding of what is, and isn't, allowed. Then, why are you bothering me in the first place, if I'll learn it naturally, eventually?Dstebbins 02:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not participate in this less than friendly exchange, but I would like to address a few of the issues raised:

In arithmetic, division by zero is not possible, or better said it does not compute. If x / 0 = ∞, you would be able to derive 0 × ∞ = 1. First of all, you may not use infinity in a calculation like that (it's not an actual number), second the calculation is against the nature of infinity and zero (zero is a Zero element (or Absorbing element) which means that x × 0 is always 0). This is all properly explained at Wikipedia's article on it.

Using power attacks combined with heavy weapons can have your fatigue drain rapidly. I found it useful to drink a Restore Fatigue potion on more than one occasion. The very fact I disagree with you on it, means they are both opinions.

I've added a link to the Reflect Spell, Spell Absorption and Oblivion:Resist Magic articles to the Reflect vs Absorb vs Resist section. That section should cover the details, but more can always be added there if deemed necessary. --Timenn-<talk> 13:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, on the arithmetic one, yes, if x / 0 = ∞, then 0 * ∞ = 1. This is how they get the mass of light (yes, light has mass). Light has no intrinsic mass, which allows it to travel at the speed of... well... light. When an object travels at the speed of light, its mass becomes infinitely times greater than at rest, which gives light mass.

Dude, I'm quoting Stephen Hawking here. If you argue with me on that, you argue with him.Dstebbins 14:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you're not quoting Stephen Hawking, at least not correctly. There is a difference between working with actual numbers and limits.

If you want to place a note about the unique properties of zero-weight items, that's fine with me. Just don't define the ratio as infinite (it's undefined actually). --Timenn-<talk> 13:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I Have a QuestionEdit

Hi, I'm Bryan and I'm not that good at editing yet, so I was just wondering, do you know how to delete a page. I made my own sandbox page and now I want to delete it. --Bryanmichael11 00:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Only the admins can delete pages. You can put a {{prod}} or {{speedydeletion}} tag on the page and it will be marked for deletion, although the latter is better if you want your sandbox to be deleted quick, also see here. --^MC• S'drassa ^•T2M 00:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks :) --Bryanmichael11 16:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

UESPWiki β