User talk:Game Lord/Archive/May-08

Morrowind:Akulakhan

I am really sorry. Dagoth Ur, Mad God (talk· contribs· email) 06:25, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, it's ok, but just one question: Why did you create it in the first place? - Game Lord^{Talk|Contribs} 06:30, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

It was created because there was a creature called Akulakhan in the Heart Chamber in my game. Dagoth Ur, Mad God (talk· contribs· email) 06:38, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Ah yes, that's the large stone statue in the middle. It was an attempt at creating a god by the Dwemer. However they never completed it, as they were punished by the Tribunal. That's why Akulakhan is not actally a creature. Just a huge statue. - Game Lord^{Talk|Contribs} 06:39, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

However, Akulakhan IS rather significant in terms of lore. It's not a creature, so it shouldn't have a creature page, but it might make sense for it to have a page, just with a picture and descriptive text and such. Somebody more lore-savvy than me would have to write the text for it though. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 08:42, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

I'd agree with the page, but I think it should be in the Tamriel namespace, with a link from the Morrowind one. Also I have to admit that that Loremaster would not be me. - Game Lord^{Talk|Contribs} 08:46, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

(Colon deaths galore) Thanks for the contact, Game Lord. I'd be happy to start this article, but I'm rather busy right now, which is why I haven't been active for a while. If someone starts the article, I'll find some time to check back and correct/improve/etc. on it. Otherwise, you will probably have to wait for me to get back on the wiki. Good idea though. We should also provide links to and from the Numidium article. --HMSVictory^Talk 04:51, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Assume Good Faith

Hi, you might want to look over the Assume Good Faith and Vandalism articles before issuing a warning, such as the recent page blanking you undid. --Volanaro 13:20, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I did, and it says right there under "Types of Vandalism", "Page Blanking", which is exactly what the user did. Ok, yes, it could have been accidental, but going onto a page, highlighting an entire section (Note that in the edit summary it states that he only edited the section "Other Items", so he didn't only remove part of the page, but all that he could see), then deleting it, then clicking on save changes is quite hard to do by accident. - Game Lord^{Talk|Contribs} 13:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

True, but there is always the chance this was an innocent mistake or the user was experimenting and was not aware of the sandbox. Note that there is a notice for blanking and deletion but not a warning. That in itself should be enough of a hint. Also if this was a mistake then a warning is more likely to put off a potentially good editor. --Volanaro 13:35, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

To be totally honest I was a bit hurried at that time in RL. My dad needed to use my PC for something, so I was trying to get off as fast as possible. In the future I'll simply not make the edit rather than make a bad one. Thanks. - Game Lord^{Talk|Contribs} 13:39, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Just for clarification and future reference.... Although Page Blanking is listed under Types of Vandalism, it's listed with a fair number of caveats leading to the conclusion "strong warnings against page blanking is not recommended" (OK, the grammar needs to be fixed...). To someone who is completely unfamiliar with the wiki software, blanking a section can be done by accident. If you do not understand the edit screen, it's possible to think that hitting "save" will add the edit box contents to the page, and therefore you might think that in order to make no changes, the correct action is to submit an empty edit box.

For those reasons, there is no default warning message provided for page-blanking; the default message for such situations is just a notice. Generally a warning only becomes appropriate when multiple pages are blanked. --Nephele^Talk 16:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Balmora Navbar

Hi, are you busy? Asking favors... XD Could you whip up a quick navigational bar for the top of Morrowind:Balmora? I have a hard time getting a border around it... Background Color should be the light blue from the citybox, with a small black border. all in the <noninlude> like it is positioned now, small and unobtrusive. Second, if you get a chance to check the region for Balmora? I don't think it is West Gash... Thanks, Benould^•T•C 06:08, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

As far as the region is concerned, it's tricky. Balmora is right at the point where three regions converge. The cells around Balmora are as follows (top left is -5,-1)

BC	BC	WG	WG	WG
BC	BM	BM	BM	WG
BC	WG	BM	WG	MF
BC	AI	AI	AI	AI

BC = Bitter Coast (5), WG = West Gash (6), BM = Balmora (4), MF = Moonmoth Fort (1), AI = Ascadian Isles (4).

That gives West Gash the edge as Balmora's region but it's pretty close one way or the other. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 06:36, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, Rpeh, I put your apt description in the text and removed the VN. Thanks also to Game Lord, the navbar works for now. Maybe we can get rid of those toc's XD

If you count only the cells immediately touching the Balmora Cells (not diagonally), it's much more clear-cut. You get 5 for West Gash, and only 2 for Bitter Coast and 1 for Ascadian Isles. Additionally, the Bitter Coast cells are geologically separated by a rather steep mountain range, so it feels more "separate" from the city than the West Gash does. That was basically my reasoning when I chose West Gash as the region for this city. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 15:04, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I've always considered Balmora to be in the West gash, simply because of the terrain around it. The trees and ground textures are certainly not of the Ascadian Isles, and don't look like the Bitter Coast, so it's West Gash from me. --HMSVictory^Talk 15:09, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

k then

as you have pointed out on my page about the subpage, can you fix this then? take the info i put on that page and put it on a actual user subpage? or do somthing if its wrong please. — Unsigned comment by Saigemasterarrow (talk • contribs)

I already did :) You might want to update the link on your userpage too, so it points to User:Saigemasterarrow/My_oblivion_people. - Game Lord^{Talk|Contribs} 12:59, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

thanks, sorry about that, im kinda new to this whole wiki editing thingSaigemasterarrow 13:04, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

You have been given a cookie! Your dedication and diligence to the wiki has not gone unnoticed. A user has seen the progress you've made, and has given you a cookie because of it. Good work! The user had the following to say: tnx for doing alot for the page's and for my user page!Saigemasterarrow 13:07, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the cookie :) - Game Lord^{Talk|Contribs} 13:08, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

HMS WARSPITE

Regarding the comments on User talk:HMS WARSPITE my problem is that if HMS Warspite continues to do this, new users may see it and start doing it as well, then we'd have all sorts of useless entries on the recen changes page, I'm probably letting my grudge against him get to me a bit so I'm gonna leave it for now but I'm just concerned that his behaviour is setting an example for new users. Also I know for a fact that he has almmost nothing useful to contribute to UESP so I don't see why he even bothers coming here. --Volanaro 13:00, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Patrolling

Congratulations on becoming a patroller! Although it's good to wake up and see that almost everything has already been patrolled, please can you make sure you've read the guidelines here and here? Basically, an edit should only be marked as patrolled when no further action needs to be taken with it. That means that a post on a talk page should be left unpatrolled until it's had a reply or some other action - unless there really is nothing that needs doing. It's good to have another active patroller though! –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 04:06, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Ah, ok, sorry about that. Another question though: Is there any point in me going through the older edits and marking them as patrolled even if the page has been changed since? - Game Lord^{Talk|Contribs} 05:14, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

If the older edit has subsequently been tidied up, removed, answered, or otherwise dealt with by somebody without being marked as patrolled, then yes, you can mark it as patrolled. If the subsequent edits did not address the unpatrolled edit, it's probably best to leave it unpatrolled. --Gaebrial 05:54, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Exactly. It's the same rule: if there's still something to be done then leave it unpatrolled. I know Nephele often goes on huge patrolling binges where she goes back as far as she can to check there's nothing that needs adding/fixing. I know a nice, all-patrolled Recent Changes page looks good but the marks are there for a reason. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 06:03, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

That's exactly what I was doing; hitting "hide patrolled" and "show 500" and "30 days" then going all the way back. - Game Lord^{Talk|Contribs} 16:27, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, but you need to make sure the edit concerned has been "done". Take [1] this, for instance. At the moment it hasn't been patrolled. I left it alone because it's non-offensive and I don't know whether it's accurate or not. I assume the other patrollers have left it alone for the same reason. It's not important enough (IMHO) to merit a Good Question tag so it gets lets. If an edit drops off the bottom without having been patrolled it's not a big deal - it just means "We don't know and we don't care". It usually happens to 100 or so edits a month. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 16:33, 29 May 2008 (EDT)