Hello! Welcome to UESPWiki. It's always good to have new members. If you would like to help improve any of our pages, you may want to take a look at the following links:
If you, on the other hand, would like to spice up your userpage, take a look at this link:
Userboxes: near complete list of userboxes, including a guide to make your own
When you're editing, it's always a good idea to leave edit summaries to explain the changes you have made to a particular page, and remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes ~~~~. Also, the "show preview" button is a great way to view the changes you've made so far without actually saving the page (our patrollers really appreciate it!).
Feel free to practice editing in the sandbox and don't hesitate to contact one of our mentors if you need any help. Have fun! --AKBTalk 00:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
You can't swear in edit summaries, like you did here. You're slowing down the response to your complaint, not speeding it up. - Minor EditsThreats•Evidence 19:36, 1 November 2012 (GMT)
Uh, I understand, sorry for this. Phoenix Neko (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2012 (GMT)
Calcelmo's Stone is an item with two languages on it, it is not a language itself. Shalidor's Insights, Elder Scrolls, Word Walls, etc are of the same class, they are merely an item, not a page on the language itself. I see no reason for the change, so please get some consensus or post your reasons why it should be identified as a language page. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 21:39, 9 April 2013 (GMT)
I agree that it is not a language (and I never said it is). But it is a thing that is important to the Linguistics (as corresponding section tells). I posted my reasons at Calcelmo's Stone Talk page. Phoenix Neko (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2013 (GMT)
Hi Phoenix Neko, I understand that you feel strongly about our current use of Loremaster's Archive references in lore articles, but on a few occasions now you've reverted based on your own opposition to the guidelines rather than any sort of community consensus. A discussion is in progress, and until it has been resolved I'd ask that you refrain from deleting content from articles. Your multiple reverts on Lore:Alessia is considered to be edit warring and is disruptive to the site, and doing it in future might result in an official warning. If you oppose something, I'd recommend taking it to the article talk page. —Legoless (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll repeat this message. A consensus has not been reached on Scenarist Guild so the edit warring should not continue. —Dillonn241 (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Good observation about the unsourced mentioning of Sarthaal in the article about Orsinium. I tracked it back to 2008 in the edit history, where it seems to have been added among a lot of other text without any traceable source by some kind of lore enthusiast. —MortenOSlash (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Rather than deleting information about older versions of ESO, we've been keeping record of the changes. I've restored the image of the statue and added a note about its disappearance instead. —Legoless (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
What makes you think that RUESP is a scam site? As far as I can tell, it's the regular Russian version of UESP that ZKoshak has been working on for years now. While it's not directly affiliated with UESP, we have no issues with him setting it up based on our site. – Robin Hood(talk) 03:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Please do not start edit wars. You've been unofficially warned twice about this. In most cases, if another editor reverts your edit discuss it on the talk page before reverting the revert. This is especially true for Scenarist Guild, which you have undone twice already. Now you are starting one on Dibella's page. —Dillonn241 (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Landal Gevont actually says this: "What can you tell me about the Goblins here?" - "they are an offshoot of the Rieklings of Eastmarch". So even if it's true then the Goblins are an offsoot of Rieklings, not the other way around. Phoenix Neko (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2019 (GMT)
That's... what? That doesn't make any sense. There's a million other sources that support Zebendal's point, even when the Rieklings talk the subtitles say "Goblin gibberish" for everything. I suggest you do some legitimate research before jumping to conclusions and reverting the hard work of dedicated editors, its doing more harm than good. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2019 (GMT)
I make all research I can and I respect all dedicated editors. Still I'm not sure what to answer to your "That's... what? That doesn't make any sense", because that's a direct quote right from the source Zebendal gave me. If Zebendal's source doesn't make any sense then I don't know which one does.
While you're here please see how the Gods page looks now with doubled book descriptions. I'm not sure why you decided to delete the more relevant descriptions that were there even before my edit and replace them with more generic. Phoenix Neko (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2019 (GMT)
What I meant by that is the deduction you made from that source is not at all what it's saying, that source (and many others) are saying that Rieklings are a subrace of Goblins, by offshoot they just meant that tribe of rieklings are offshoots of another tribe of rieklings. If you read an additional source or played the quest in the game you probably wouldn't be confused, but if you still stick by that notion then you should take it to the article's talk page.
The change to the books section on the Gods page was just standardizing to current wiki formatting. The previous links hadn't been updated in years, I was just changing all the hyperlinks to book link templates. We use Book Links on hundreds of other lore articles; the Magic article is an appendices page, same category as Gods, and is just one example of how Book Links are used. Your descriptions were good because they were describing how they're relevant to the page at hand, and I did my best to keep them by removing the ones that described essentially the same thing (ie Children of the Root). I didn't want to get rid of all of them but was just standardizing to a common template that should have been there a long time ago, we try to keep that section simple, the double descriptions aren't my first choice and you can alter the formatting at your leisure, its just standard formatting usage to use the Book Links template.
I'm only telling you this in the first place so that you know how to better handle future situations. You're constantly removing content with an objective stance and make it very difficult to an agreement. Many of the things you take off should instead be discussed in a talk page beforehand for whether they should stay. I've accommodated your behavior before, even going so far as to add a citation to a gamespace article even though that's rarely ever done, just because you didn't believe that my edits were factual. It would be much easier if you went to the talk page, asked for a source, and had it provided to you there, but by choosing the other path you went through an edit war. You continue to pit yourself into edit wars because you don't want to discuss the reasoning for disagreeing with pre-existing content in a civil manner, and you seem to have been doing it for years now. I'm only saying this to help you in the hopes that you alter your approach because whatever you're doing now is not a reasonable way to manage it. Many conflicts can be avoided by accepting that you may not know all the facts, and starting a discussion could prevent reverts in the first place because a source and explanation can be provided there that otherwise wouldn't reasonably fit into an edit description. Every editor here is a volunteer and I know most people will find it disruptive and stressful when someone reverts their edits or removes their work without any talk page discussion. Just try to discuss things before removing them outright. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2019 (GMT)
