User talk:ThuumofReason

Archives
Archive 1: December 2011 - April 2013
Archive 2: October 2013 - June 2014

Discerning the TransmundaneEdit

Howdy doo. This isn't a big deal but I was wondering what you removed in the discussion page of the quest listed above for skyrim? Also I saw that you put the reason for deleting was because you thought I modded the game? I can't mod the game because I'm on the PlayStation. Anyway it's not a big deal. I was just wondering what I put that you removed. I wish there was a better messaging system. An inbox for private messaging or something. Haha geez I'm just rambling on. Anyway no big deal. Thank you. :) Cjesseg (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2014 (GMT)

To answer your question, your response was what we call a "necropost", which basically means that you were replying to a discussion that was really old and had already been resolved, so your comment didn't really add anything. The talk pages for articles aren't like forums; they're meant to be formal discussions of things that will improve the contents of articles, so commenting on old discussions is rarely useful. The only time it's okay to comment on old discussions is if the comment provides some new insight on an important issue that hasn't been resolved.

Your comment asked if that bug should be added to the article, and the answer was it shouldn't, because it was the result of playing around with mods/add-ons, which is known to screw up games and thus isn't a bug with the game itself. The easiest fix to that problem would be to not uninstall mods after they've been installed, thus preventing the problem in the first place. Hope this helps! Zul se onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 12:25, 3 July 2014 (GMT)

Yeah, you did help me out. Clarified things. Thank you.

But I have been wondering and its been bugging because I don't know if you or anyone's seen it yet but I added two bug work arounds and its killing me to know if they're useful or worth keeping there. I added one to the "hitting the books" quest about the callers locked loot room bug and I added one to the one we're talking about. The mute hermaeus mora. They hadn't been deleted yet so I'm assuming they're in the clear but there still is a chance they hadn't been seen yet. So if you don't mind checking them out to see if they're worthy you'd release my tension. Haha because I'm really Happy I found a way around it and can share it to help others in the situation because I know it sucks and i love knowing i might have helped someone out with this or any other bug. Thank youCjesseg (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2014 (GMT)

Well, the fix probably isn't worth noting on the article, since the thing it's intended to fix isn't worth mentioning itself, but there's not really any harm in leaving it on the talk page. In the event that anyone has the same problem, they can just look to the talk page for your fix. Of course, if you have a fix for a bug that's already on the page, it's better to just add the fix to the article instead of making a new discussion for it. Zul se onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 01:49, 4 July 2014 (GMT)

Thank you. I know I could add it to the main article but it doesn't seem like my place to and I don't want to take a chance at messing it up. So I make a new discussion so that a moderator, such as yourself could see it and add it more appropriatly. Cjesseg (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2014 (GMT)

I'm not really a "moderator", that would be someone more like Legoless or Robin Hood. But you're welcome! Zul se onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 10:38, 4 July 2014 (GMT)

Tons of editsEdit

The reason I made so many edits was because I was unsure how to properly make one of those citation things so I kept trying and failing until I finally got it right. And the preview button was bugging out for me. — Unsigned comment by 95.142.121.175 (talk) at 12:45 on 19 July 2014

That's fine, just wanted to make sure you knew. Sometimes when I want to make an edit or use a template and I'm not sure how it's done, I open a new tab and search the Help files while I edit to make sure I'm doing it okay. Zul se onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 14:20, 19 July 2014 (GMT)

Happy Birhday!Edit

You have been given a cupcake! Happy birthday, Thuum! Hope you have an awesome day :D. ⇠eshetalk 16:48, 15 March 2013 (GMT)

Happy birthday, Thuum! – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 14:41, 22 July 2014 (GMT)

Thanks, guys! I had a really relaxing day off. Zul se onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 11:28, 23 July 2014 (GMT)

March of the DeadEdit

I completed that quest on three occasions (reloading), killing the ash spawn myself. About 30 game play hours they were back and essential. How about you check the scripting that causes this? Sniffles (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2014 (GMT)

I'm restoring this conversation on the article's talk page. It'll be easier to solicit input from people regarding their experiences and information found in the scripts there. ⇠eshe^talk 13:02, 31 July 2014 (GMT)

I removed that conversation because it was a forum post. Just saying that they make good training dummies isn't relevant to improving the article, which is why I removed it, but it is true that some clarification is needed on the issue of the bug. Zul se onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 14:38, 31 July 2014 (GMT)

Persuasion missing dialogueEdit

This is true. Open the Construction Set and look up the topic BOASTDISLIKE. Aside of "I doubt it", you'll also find the lines "Yeah, right", "That never happened", "That's pretty far-fetched" and "So you say....", which I never heard once in the game. As far as I can tell, the reason for this is that these four lines are missing the "Random" flag, which excludes them from being randomly selected by the game. It's like this in an unmodded 1.2 game, so if you really DID hear these lines, it must be a result of some mod. - ZuTheSkunk (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2014 (GMT)

Just because you've never heard more than one line doesn't mean nobody else has. I've heard "that never happened" (and I believe several others as well) in a game using only the official patches. The main issue there was with the way you worded it, which made it sound like a certainty rather than a possibility. One of the main editing principles used on this wiki is that information has to be accurate and verifiable, so unless multiple sources have confirmed that it happens in every game, it's best to avoid absolute terms. If you want to re-add it using less absolute terms, that would be okay, but at some point the issue of verification is probably going to be raised, and the information may be removed. Zul se onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 03:02, 15 December 2014 (GMT)

Hey, what gives?Edit

In regards to this partial undo, I beg to differ: The note seemed fine the way it was (assuming I'm reading correctly). If it was fine -- per Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary -- "Don't revert an edit because it is unnecessary — because it does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse."

1st note:

Compare this:

• It is considered trespassing to wait in the tower.

To this:

• You cannot wait in the tower, as it is considered trespassing.

I made the latter more concise by taking some words out while still stating the same point I believe; please explain why you changed it back? – Dragon Guard  ^(talk) 21:23, 31 December 2014 (GMT)

Your revised note conveys less information, and is objectively worse. Not being able to wait in the tower removes a powerful method of healing. —Legoless (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2014 (GMT)

(edit conflict) As Lego says, The issue there was that by making it more concise, you cut out a key piece of information-namely, that waiting in the tower is impossible. I am well aware of the policy for reverting edits, so you don't need to quote anything at me. In fact, I wish you wouldn't, since quoting policy at a more senior editor often leaves a poor impression. Zul se onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 21:50, 31 December 2014 (GMT)

OK, but now the question is: can I shorten the note as long as it doesn't "cut out a key piece of information"? I know that would be well-near impossible, but I might just...wait...Couldn't it be put in the "Detailed Walkthrough" part instead of the notes "part". I don't see why not. Actually -- on that note -- I don't know about you's, but I think that the walkthrough could do with a major overhaul. A major overhaul. – Dragon Guard  ^(talk) 22:07, 31 December 2014 (GMT)

There's no point in trying to shorten it, it's a single sentence. It's fine as is, and there's really no way to make it even shorter while conveying the same information anyway. I would also stay away from overhauling anything, there are usually projects with associated guidelines for that. Zul se onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 22:20, 31 December 2014 (GMT)

OK, thanks. – Dragon Guard  ^(talk) 22:25, 31 December 2014 (GMT)

Sorry!Edit

I was playing as i was adding- I noticed that things weren't on the page that might be helpful to add, so i added as I went. In the future, I'll just write it all down and do everything at once! — Unsigned comment by 24.129.223.112 (talk) at 19:18 on 27 September 2015 (GMT)

Thanks a lot! That will make our patrollers' jobs a lot easier. I'm glad you were contributing useful information to our articles, a lot of them could use some help. If you're interested in contributing more, you may want to think about registering an account with us. Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 20:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh My Post!Edit

ThuumofReason, I'm curious to know why you removed my post when it hasn't been three months since the last reply. I'm not angry or getting angry at you, by the way. I just thought it was prudent to ask. DRAGON GUARD^(TALK) 23:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Those are the rules for the forums, not the wiki. Your post was an unconstructive addition to a finished discussion - maybe not a 'necro', but certainly not very relevant. If you'd like to theorise on the reasoning behind Miraak's behaviour, the best place to do so would be the forums. —Legoless (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Finished? Far from it. To quote your post, "I don't believe so" is your opinion. It doesn't answer the question properly. I would keep the discussion open until we find an answer in the game data. Sound like a plan? DRAGON GUARD^(TALK) 00:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

If you can find any evidence to the contrary, go ahead. —Legoless (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the original post was from March, and the reply came in late August, 2 months and several weeks before the post in question. I feel that sufficient time has passed on an issue of relatively minor scope that any further posts are meaningless. If you can find any hard evidence that Miraak's shouts don't have a cooldown, and assuming that this distinguishes him from other NPCs that can shout (there's no point in mentioning it if every NPC can shout without cooldowns), then you can probably add a note to the page directly instead of going to the talk page. Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 21:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Application of scripts must be probable here. Greybeards can shout without a cooldown, I've noticed this in gameplay many times. You're spot on about the need for hard evidence, Thuum. There could be a script/scripts in place to circumvent cooldowns, and if there we would need to find them (if applicable). Could it be a senseless dictate? If they didn't have a cooldown, would it be a glitch? Or does it follow the "NPCs don't play as players play" principle? I don't think it is a reduced cooldown, as I can't find anything given to those NPCs which would reduce the cooldown duration. For the record, I have yet to set eyes upon a major league gamer's report which unequivocally contains the fact: "Miraak and the Greybeards DON'T have a cooldown." DRAGON GUARD^(TALK) 01:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

(←) I would think "NPCs don't play as players play" is the key here. If it's true that none of the other NPCs have cooldowns on shouts, then it's not worth noting for Miraak. If they do have cooldowns (which would have to be confirmed by the construction set) and Miraak doesn't (again, as confirmed in the construction set), then a note would be appropriate. Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 21:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

While Dragon Guard's post really wasn't that useful in and of itself, after watching the back and forth here for a bit, I figured the best way to resolve this discussion was to look into it. See the talk page for details. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 21:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, "looking into it" is indeed the only way an issue requiring hard evidence can be resolved, and it sounds like you've done just that. Hopefully that should put this matter to rest. Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 00:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Heads UpEdit

Hey, just wanted to let you know that the edit you tried to make to YoungWolf's page, advising him to take the discussion to the forums, went to the wrong talk page due to a capitalization error. User_talk:Youngwolf was created; however there is no such user. —likelolwhat ^{talk lulzy to me} 07:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hell. Glad you caught that! Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 20:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Undo revision 1499509 by Rob-nick (talk)already mentioned in the above paragraphEdit

Actually its not mentioned in the above paragraph. I noted that you had to wear a dragon past *first* then equip another item and that it was still an issue in PS3. But whatever - happy editing. — Unsigned comment by Rob-nick (talk • contribs) at 07:57 on 25 January 2016

The paragraph states The Aetherial Crown, Wedding Wreath, and all Dragon Priest Masks occupy only the "circlet" body part slot, and can therefore also be worn simultaneously with any of the aforementioned bugged items. The Jagged Crown is one of those aforementioned items, and the previous paragraph also mentions that the Jagged Crown can be worn with circlets. Regardless, listing information about exploits is usually something we only do on the Glitches article for a given game, so I removed it in the interest of avoiding redundancy. The edit summary was intended as a catch-all description, since it can be tough to succinctly describe all the reasons for some edits. Sorry if this caused you any confusion. Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 20:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

a pot isn't a noteworthy itemEdit

Can not you understand that this is a unique thing. Only three such pots in the game.--Ukraine007 (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

First of all, if there are three of them, then it isn't "unique", just "uncommon". Second, even if it is an uncommon type of pot, pots are clutter items with no use in the game. The purpose of location articles is to describe notable features of the location, such as inhabitants, services, and useful items that can be found there. When we list notable treasure for a location article, we're not talking about just anything out of the ordinary; we're referring to items such as unique weapons or skill books. Something like Chillrend or the Shield of Ysgramor can be mentioned on the articles for their respective locations because they're powerful pieces of equipment that can only be found in those locations, but something like a different kind of pot isn't of interest to most people, so it's outside the scope of a location article. Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 17:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

An ApologyEdit

I apologize for clogging up the recent changes pages. I assume that they are from my User page. Unfortunately, my browser will crash if I show changes/preview more than three times between saving changes when I am editing. From now on I will work harder to limit my changes; also I will from now on be clicking the "this is a minor edit" box. Please message me back if there is another solution to this problem.

"Ta, come visit again! Or I will PLUCK OUT YOUR EYES! HAHAHAHA!" -- Sheogorath Da zink27 (talk) 22:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

This user wants you to have a fishy stick!

Thanks! The issue isn't so much with the number of edits you make per se, but when you make multiple changes to the same page consecutively instead of making them all at once, it creates a hassle for patrollers. The best solution is to just take it slow and make sure you don't save the changes until you're certain you've said everything you want to say. It's not really a big deal as long as it doesn't become a pattern, but I'm glad you're so dedicated to contributing.

That's interesting about the browser though, I've never heard of that happening before. Maybe you need to download a new version or something? Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 20:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

"Has" Vs. "Have"Edit

No Thuum, "has" is correct when the Shivering Isles is referred to collectively. http://cs.uesp.net/index.php?game=ob&formid=0x0009101a. --Dragon Guard (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

DaggerfallEdit

Thanks for the feedback about the namespace. However, it does bring up an issue, as others have also said there was a discussion years ago and that it was decided to NOT include any info other than what was available with the last official patch. So now, I don't know what to do when it comes to editing as everything is the wrong way to somebody who is far more knowledgeable than I. Anyway, the last big push to improve the namespace was nearly ten years ago. Would a reaffirming of how to deal with Daggerfall be in order? I know it would be helpful personally. Echo (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I saw that message, and I think PLRDLF took a different message away from that discussion than I did. It was so long ago, I admit I can't remember the specifics. Regardless, I think you're right, we're definitely overdue for some revised guidelines. PLRDLF wrote most of that namespace years ago, and I did a fair bit of grammatical cleanup myself, but I would definitely approve of some more up-to-date guidelines that would bring the Daggerfall namespace in line with the newer games. Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 19:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. What would be the best place to have such a discussion? Echo (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Probably the Community Portal. Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 19:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Notched PickaxeEdit

Sorry, you were right. I was thinking it was pointless fixing an enchantment you couldn't learn, but yes it was still present on the 'unique' axe. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 11:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It's all good. Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 19:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Voice ActorsEdit

Regarding your recent reversions to the Morrowind and Oblivion voice actor articles, you have me confused. I notice that the articles DO mention the voice actors who appear in Fallout 3, so I'm wondering about consistency here. - KINMUNE ﴾TALK﴿ 12:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

That was my bad, I was checking about 3 different pages at once and got my wires crossed. Thanks for the heads-up! Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 19:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Other Users CommentsEdit

I don't understand how your opinion determines the validity of other user entries on talk pages. My understanding is unless it is yours, you should discuss the content with the original author before removing it and removing without warning is borderline edit warring again - reversion of article content that is incorrect I understand but I'm not sure I see the validity of this practice on a talk page.Vainamoinen -Talk -Stuff 23:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

My opinion doesn't actually determine anything, nor does the opinion of any individual. What determines things on our site are the opinions of MANY individuals; in other words, consensus. Community consensus is what all of our policies are based on, such as our policy on necroposting. You are correct that generally speaking, you aren't supposed to edit other users' posts, but as that page shows, there are several clear exceptions.

By the same token, it's not necessary to ask permission to edit beforehand unless an edit is controversial (that is, if the policy isn't clear and there is disagreement). In this context, "controversial" means more than "people take issue with it". For example, reverting the addition of speculation to articles may cause frustration with an editor who doesn't understand that we don't allow speculation in our articles. That editor may get upset with the removal, but the removal itself would still be considered an uncontroversial edit because the removal is in line with wiki policy. If that user takes issue with it on the talk page, THEN a discussion can be had as to why the information should be on the article. Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 00:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything on that link about necro posting but again I don't see how any of those points you made apply to your recent reversions on talk pages. Your edit summaries for why you were removing content added by others was personal opinion. You did not consider the additions valid/contributing to the discussion. Now this is certainly true of vandalism, even on a talk page, but if this were wiki policy then a great many user talk page comments would be in violation. Again, there is no justification for the removal of other user contributions on talk pages based on personal opinion and you need to contact the author in the future if you have complaints rather than simply reverting edits you disagree with.Vainamoinen -Talk -Stuff 00:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Vainamoinen: The part you were looking for is where it says, "Deletion of all or part of another editor's contribution is only acceptable when the contribution ... responds to a post so old it's unlikely to be read by the poster or of concern to anyone else (a necropost)". While there's been some debate in the past about what constitutes a necropost, generally speaking, if it's an old post, and you're not clearly adding new information to it, then it's considered a necropost and can be removed. It's part of patrollers' and administrators' jobs to make those decisions and remove posts if necessary. Assuming we're talking about this post, I can certainly see the arguments on both sides. Saying something didn't work isn't really adding significant new information; it'd be significant if it did work. OTOH, you could also argue that it is new information in that it prevents a lot of people from trying the same thing only to find that it doesn't work. Similarly, you can argue both the usefulness or lack thereof of the comment regarding the Hearthfire addition. In the end, Thuum made a judgement call on it, and that call was completely in line with our policy on necroposts. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 01:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

This still does not resolve the actual issue. If the complaint was the commment was necroposting or another policy issue, it would save us all a lot of trouble and prevent the issue in the future if the removal was accompanied with the appropriate edit summary instead of a long winded complaint phrased as personal opinion that only serves to make the user complaining look bad.Vainamoinen -Talk -Stuff 01:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2 The term "necroposting" is mentioned directly in the link to the Namespaces page that I provided in my last post. I understand that you have your own opinions on how people should go about dealing with edits made by other users, but please understand that that opinion is contrary to wiki policy, and other users are not beholden to it. Again, when disputes arise, we defer to consensus, and consensus is what informs our policies. As a patroller, my job is to enforce these policies. Some people react better than others to their edits being reverted. Believe me, I know it's not fun when you get reverted on what you believe is a legitimate edit, but being able to work through disputes constructively and see things from other viewpoints (and even knowing when to drop a subject when no progress is being made) is a vital part of being a constructive editor. Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 01:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

My StatusEdit

Over the last few months, my activity on the site has gone down from where it has been in previous months. This is mainly for two reasons. First, my activity on the site since day one has been devoted largely to Skyrim and Oblivion, with some dabbling in Daggerfall as well. At this point, however, I feel that there is very little that can still be done to improve either the Skyrim or Oblivion namespaces (at least, very little that I could do that other people couldn't and aren't doing better), and we already have a very talented and dedicated user improving and expanding on the Daggerfall namespace. Second, as my responsibilities outside the wiki demand more and more of my time and attention, I find myself with less and less free time, and what time I do have I usually devote to relaxing and playing other games.

Seeing as how I'm not devoting the time to the wiki that an active patroller should, I'm going on a hiatus of indeterminate length. I probably won't return before TES 6 is released, at which point I'll have more to contribute. I'll still be available for email contact should anyone wish to contact me with anything. Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 20:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Sad to see you go. :( I'll update the patrollers list to reflect this. —Legoless (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Good luck Thuum! I've always seen you as a model contributor to this site and learned a thing or two over the years from you about how to contribute to articles and discussions on the wiki. You and your contributions to the site will be missed and we'll all be looking forward to TES 6 even more now to hopefully see you return to the site! Best wishes, -Forfeit (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)