User talk:Jeancey/Buche

Archives
Az	Buche	Vede
Glagole	Dobre	Iest
Jivete	Dzealo	Zemle
Ije	Caco

The Winds of ChangeEdit

You changed my edit of the location for this book, but aside from the console zone being named as part of Blood Skal Barrow, I don't see any reason to list it as actually being located there. That section of the Barrow is referred to as Raven Rock Mine on the game map and can be accessed from Raven Rock without ever entering Blood Skal proper. Also. every other page on the UESP for Raven Rock Mine and the quest associated with the book refers to Raven Rock being the location where the book is found. E nigma (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2013 (GMT)

10k ClubEdit

You have been given a gold star! Congratulations on becoming the 11th biological being to pass this mark, I just beat you there :D Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 22:32, 12 February 2013 (GMT)

Well, congrats from me, too. Just one question: Do you ever ask people worthless questions just to give yourself another edit? No need to answer, as it's rhetorical. --JR (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2013 (GMT)

LOL @ JR. Congrats, Jeancey-bot! – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 04:16, 13 February 2013 (GMT)

Thanks! :) Two more months I'll be part of the 20k club! Jeancey (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2013 (GMT)

There's really no more charming way of expressing gratitude for congratulations than smugly announcing that you've already decided you deserve yet more. Oh darn! Will this count for me as an edit? It really shouldn't. --JR (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2013 (GMT)

Frequently Helpful; Sometimes Nice StarEdit

You have been given a gold star! In recognition for you being frequently helpful, and sometimes nice.

--JR (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2013 (GMT)

Re:Forum LinkingEdit

Can I link to sites such as Tamriel Foundry as a source then? --Archeer (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2013 (GMT)

Rune areaEdit

Actually, the reason I left those "huh"s in the DB rune spells is because I wanted to put the area of the explosion in - and I'd actually want to do that for the other rune spells as well. I just have to figure out what the area is - I know it's in there somewhere. Yes, technically, there's a 0 there if you look at the rune spell, but that's not very useful information. People looking at that page will likely want to know how big an explosion the rune will cause, so that'd be a good place to show that info. TheRealLurlock (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2013 (GMT)

Quick questionEdit

Hey Jeancey, as a newish editor I was hoping you could clarify the replacement of the indent I removed from the last note on the Bloated Man's Grotto page? I thought they were supposed to be aligned left. What am I missing here, for better understanding? Thanks :) Scribbles (Crayolamanic) 06:21, 20 February 2013 (GMT)

Hey, Welcome! From what I could tell, the second statement was meant to be an addendum to the bug, in which case it is indented once. If I was mistaken in that assessment, and it was a separate bug, then it would need the bug template added to it :) Hopefully that made sense, as it is a tad bit late here :) Jeancey (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2013 (GMT)

OK, I thought that might be why but in reading the notes, it didn't come across as a sub-note, I thought it read like a separate item. I will need to look at it again. Thanks for the super quick reply! Edit: I looked at it again, and I think the two notes could very easily be merged into one comprehensive note. What do you think?  :) --Scribbles (Crayolamanic) (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2013 (GMT)

Well, we usually keep a small description of bugs to the template, with any additional information below it and indented. If you can keep roughly the same size of the current bug, but still combine them, go for it :) Jeancey (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2013 (GMT)

Hey!Edit

Since we were talking in IRC about doing inventories for all the NPCs with pages, I asked RobinHood70 to make me another list (because lists are so fun :P), and he compiled each NPC that had an NPC Summary for me, which means we have a large checklist of all those NPCs from MW, TR, and BM right here, if you want to run through it with me or copy a list for yourself. :) Jo'Sakhar➚^{talk to me} 05:59, 22 February 2013 (GMT)

Reference TemplateEdit

I don't think it's necessary to replace every reference with the {{ref}} template. If we ever do decide to replace them, it would be better to have a bot do the work. —Legoless (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2013 (GMT)

I wasn't replacing every one, but it does make it easier to read the article. I've been just randomly hopping around to pages, and fixing what I can. Jeancey (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2013 (GMT)

Oh, all good then. —Legoless (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2013 (GMT)

Charwich and KoniingeEdit

While your edits to the Charwich and Koniinge letters (putting only one name in the author field) were technically accurate, I'm not sure if they should stay that way. For instance, if you were to do the same for the 4th book, which is really written by Koniinge though he wrote it as if he was Syrix, you'd pretty much spoil the ending of that book. I'm thinking they should just go back to being written by both authors, as this is true of the series as a whole, and doesn't give away the surprise twist in book #4. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2013 (GMT)

Thanks for all the little editsEdit

You have been given a cookie piece! 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 piece because of it. Good work! The user had the following to say: Hi Jeancey, this is just to thank you for all those little edits to my contributions recently, and to let you know that I do notice them, even if I don't comment about them normally. Your courtesy edit to my copy of the History pages was most appreciated, as was showing me how to use {{Good Question}} with a date. Thanks. – Daric↝talk 03:33, 24 February 2013 (GMT)

Revert comment on New Source of StalhrimEdit

Excuse me, but you do not have to be so rude in your revert comment to me. I put that note there because the above note said "ONLY buys", which is not true with the Merchant perk. — Kunvulonin^{Künvülänin} 06:31, 25 February 2013 (GMT)

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be rude. It is hard to put emphasis in edit summaries, which is what I was trying to do. For merchant pages, we only list what they buy before the perk. It is important to note that he only buys stalhrim, because before the perk he won't buy any other types of weapons. It is just assumed that the perk allows you to sell other things to him. Jeancey (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2013 (GMT)

Elder racesEdit

You reverted my note on Skyrim:Elder, and I'm curious as to why - I was stating that none of the elders in the game could be anything but Nord, Imperial or Breton. A quick scan of all of them should confirm this. Yes, you could with the CK change their skin color to whatever you want. But a green elder does not look like an Orc, nor can you get an elder to look like any of the elven races. It's not just about skin color - the facial structures are noticeably different. (Note the lack of pointy ears and narrow angular faces of elves, or the large under-bite and exposed fangs of Orcs.) Notably, Neloth, by far the oldest non-undead NPC we meet in the game so far, is explicitly set up as Dunmer, not Elder. Argonian and Khajiit elders are completely impossible for obvious reasons. That leaves only Redguard. Yes, I'll concede that you could make an Elder into a passable Redguard, but again, looking at the Elders currently in the game, they have clearly not done so. NPCs added by unofficial mods don't count, so as the game currently stands, there are no Elders that are anything other than Nord, Imperial, or Breton. It's possible that a future DLC may feature an Elder Redguard (though the non-human races are all still impossible), but until that happens, my statement is still accurate. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2013 (GMT)

We can't say that it is impossible, because they could always make new models for the elven races in the future. Notice I didn't remove the part about what they could be, just that it is "clearly impossible for them to be any other race". It isn't IMPOSSIBLE, just not currently in the game. We don't know what the future will hold. I think we should stick to just mentioning the races they can be at the moment, rather than speculating on the future. Jeancey (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2013 (GMT)

The statement wasn't meant to say that it's impossible to add elders of other races. Obviously a modder can add in whatever they want, from Sloads to people with chairs for a head. (Yes, I've seen both.) Only that it's impossible that any of the currently existing elders are anything besides these three races. Maybe if we amended the statement to say: "Certainly no other races are currently represented in the elder race", it would remove the possible ambiguity. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2013 (GMT)

Can we remove the word certainly? So it just says "No other races are currently represented in the elder race"? Jeancey (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2013 (GMT)

Sure, that's reasonable I guess. I mean, right now, it is pretty certain. It could change in the future, sure, but that's covered by the word "currently". And if it does change, we'll obviously update the statement to reflect that. Note that I also said "are represented", not "can be represented", but whatever. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2013 (GMT)

Thanks ;)Edit

I was distracted while trying to find the mistake I made on that link on the Shadowmere talk page, thanks for fixing that immediately. First time with that template and all I do here is deconstruct things to learn how to recreate them. :) --Crayolamanic (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2013 (GMT)

No worries :) That's why I'm here!! Jeancey (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2013 (GMT)

Social Media PagesEdit

Hey there Jeancey, Avron here! Remember how you offered to help us out on the social media pages? What about a little lore info feature? I wouldn't mind coming up with some short little "Did you know" type things with a link to the appropriate page on the wiki. Since you said you were into the lore I thought it would be a fun way to learn or expand on things and share them with our fans. Would you be interested in leading the way with that? (You can round up some other lore buffs and get a little pool going. I think it'd be fun!) ---Avron the S'wit (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2013 (GMT)

I would love to do that!! Also, I'm not sure if you noticed, but I tweeted at the UESP account from my newly created Jeancey_UESP account that the article on TES IV: Oblivion reached featured article status on wikipedia last night :) I thought that might be an interesting tidbit to add as well! How many of the "Did you know" things were you looking for? Once a week? Or just, whenever I can come up with them? Jeancey (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2013 (GMT)

I saw that and retweeted it! Great find! As for the lore things, I'm not sure with the schedule; I'd have to check with my partner in crime. I can definitely do it once a week on the Twitter - it's a fun and easy fix! See what you can round up! --Avron the S'wit (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2013 (GMT)

Sweet! I'll try and come up with a few right now. We might have to start after this week, since I have finals until about Friday :) Jeancey (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2013 (GMT)

LayoutEdit

Just FYI, "See Also" goes below "References" on lore articles. —Legoless (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2013 (GMT)

Sorry, this was probably my fault—I've seen other pages where References came after See Also (like this one) and thought this was the standard. ⇠eshe^talk 17:31, 11 March 2013 (GMT)

Actually, references need to go last, because of the likelihood that a reference section may be extremely long, and the see also section would get lost. That is the reason why see also is before references on Wikipedia. Jeancey (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2013 (GMT)

Yeah...it may look better that way on most pages, but the lore guidelines actually do specify that See Also should be last. Maybe it should be brought up over there? ⇠eshe^talk 17:43, 11 March 2013 (GMT)

I made a post about it on the lore guidelines talk page. Jeancey (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2013 (GMT)

Easter EggsEdit

I'm undoing your revert of my wording changes on the eggs page because, while you're right that we can't technically be absolutely certain, the way we've always treated proposals on that page is that we don't include them unless the argument for inclusion is strong enough that there is next to no chance that it's a coincidence. Because we have such a high standard for inclusion-namely, that we don't put it on the page unless we ARE certain-saying that something MAY be a reference rather than saying that it IS a reference kind of undermines the fact that it meets the criteria to be on the page at all. I'm probably making this sound more complicated than it needs to, but basically the issue is that saying something MIGHT be a reference in its entry contradicts our reasoning for putting it on the page at all. If we've decided to include it, by extension we've decided that it IS a reference. ThuumofReason (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2013 (GMT)

I guess that makes sense, go for it. Jeancey (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2013 (GMT)

HiEdit

Hey Listen, I think you were wrong t revert my editing of the Windhelm page because if I am correct, all similar pages are done in the same manner, and it is just not right to have them under related quests whilst other pages DO have the Quests that start here part. I think that consider Windhelm does have enough quests that start there, my edits were correct and undoing them was wrong. Cheers.

JackTurbo95 (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2013 (GMT)

Let me look at the other city pages to see what is the norm. I don't edit those pages much, so you could very well be correct. Let me look into it, and if you are, I will revert myself :). Jeancey (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2013 (GMT)

Thanks a bunch :) JackTurbo95 (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2013 (GMT)

Yes Done. I self reverted. Jeancey (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2013 (GMT)

Arbitrary DeletionsEdit

Would you mind terribly, reading discussion pages before deleting other people's additions to articles? Downstrike (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2013 (GMT)

Which article are you referring to specifically? Jeancey (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2013 (GMT)

This will get you up to speed, Jeancey. Snowmane➚^(talk)

Thanks Snowmane :) Jeancey (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2013 (GMT)

Thank you again! Meanwhile, I'm trying to be more specific in referring to the discussion in my summaries. Downstrike (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2013 (GMT)

Minor editsEdit

Hi! Thank you for a kind response and politeness. I'm still a bit new to all this tags, codes and rules, even Sottilde's Code Book was easier to understand, but I'm doing my best to learn. Sorry for possible mistakes, by the way... They say he is lifeless who is faultless. Lanjane (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2013 (GMT)

Thanks For Your Quality ContributionsEdit

Hey Jeancey, thanks for the effort you put in to this discussion. I know that not everyone has the time (or the inclination) to make the huge long posts that I often do. But I really do appreciate it when people dig a little deeper, as you did in that debate, even though you opposed my position on the topic at hand. So here's a little something for you, not as any prize for any competition though, as that is not allowed on the wiki, apparently.

You have been given a Fishy Stick! 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 Fishy Stick because of it. Good work! The user had the following to say: For intelligent, thoughtful, and stimulating conversation. — Daric✐ 22:09, 27 March 2013 (GMT)

Thanks!!! Jeancey (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2013 (GMT)