User talk:Anarchangel

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello Anarchangel! Welcome to the wiki. I hope you enjoy using the site and find the information on it useful. If you decide you want to help improve any of our pages, we're always welcoming to new editors so feel free. You might want to look at our Getting Started page for some tips on how to begin, then play in our Sandbox for a while to practice. If you need any help or advice, please ask one of our mentors. Enjoy! –RpehTCE 05:45, 9 July 2008 (EDT)


Hi Anarchangel. Thanks for all the time you've spent on the wiki recently. I wanted to stop by and point out our Assume Good Faith policy. It's very important to not accuse other editors of trolling unless there is clear evidence that the edit was made with bad intentions. Also, even in the case that trolling or vandalism is apparent, make sure to not "feed the trolls". If an editor is making edits with bad intentions, saying anything other than a simple "vandalism" in the edit summary is giving the editor the attention that he or she is seeking. It's clear that you're only trying to help maintain the wiki, but be sure to use a little discretion when writing your edit summaries in the future. --GKTalk2me 21:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


Rather than letting this continue on the Oblivion talk:Houses discussion I think it's best to bring this up directly with you, and perhaps I should have done this earlier.

Au contraire; you have not responded to my points on Houses, and show no signs of doing so, preferring to dispense advice that is similar to telling me to get out of town by sundown ("This wiki was built on mutual cooperation and discussion, and if you can't work with that (not seeing the difference between your truth and "the truth") maybe a wiki is not the best place for you?"). As far as I am concerned, the discussion can only proceed when you begin to participate in it. Anarchangel 21:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've received complaints from various editors about certain aspects of your style of discussing, and I have my own concerns about them. First of all, let me emphasize that suggesting that a particular discussion is a waste of time, like you did here is usually considered to be bad conduct. This because you yourself were involved in that discussion; our Etiquette asks that people be patient, also when disagreeing. If you can't seem to convince others of your conviction, try to approach the discussion differently. Investigate what they actually want, and try to reach a common ground there. The discussion won't move forward if you simply repeat your claim you hold the truth.

I can not comment on discussions about my behaviour I was not and can not have been a party to.
My linking to data showing that revisions are the largest category of data storage on wikis has always been and will be, for the foreseeable future, a recommendation to not delete text from articles to 'save space'. It have no preference for the duration or length of discussions other than the obvious one, that they be succinct, and in any case that they be a waste of time, I would, have, and will, address the quality of the points rather than their length, until length becomes the greater problem (See Ad Nauseum / Proof by assertion). Anarchangel 21:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I have already stated why I used the word truth; call me a liar, as Rpeh already has on your talk page, or move on, please. Anarchangel 21:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me also state that including suggestive links to discussions to discredit editors is also not proper. If you have issues you wish to address, either try contacting such person directly and try to give productive criticism, or take it up with an administrator. If your issue is with an administrator, try to contact a different one.

No idea whatsoever what you mean by suggestive links. I never discredit editors, only their mistakes. (See Ad Hominem Anarchangel 21:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If a disagreement is taking place ([1]), it's practice to reach consensus first, instead of altering an article to what you view as the status quo. As for edits like this, Krusty was correct there to call you on your dismissal of Consensus, and replying with such a patronizing comment is simply not done. --Timenn-<talk> 11:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Per 'dismissal', see 'data', above.
Krusty's opinion is consensus, and mine + GK's is not? My edits are without consensus, and GK's are not? Go over it again. Anarchangel 21:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I stand by my my behaviour on this wiki, as it stands in the individual cases. Again I say, familiarize yourselves with Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and its articles on logical argument and logical fallacies. Anarchangel 21:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I give up. You have no chance of making a wiki worthy of respect.

Rpeh blatantly and continually, but others more subtly, get away with doing personal attacks, e.g. in a discussion about a policy to block people for doing so, no less. See also Oblivion talk:Marksman Training, 15 & 19 Jan, with a perfect example of the meatpuppetry and PoV typical of this cabal, where Rpeh's behaviour is completely overlooked by Timenn, and mine is fitted for frames. See also User talk:Timenn, Jan 11, a perfect example of the opposite of AGF.

They are not the only ones either; all major editors I have encountered on UESP have shown again and again that they cannot distinguish between critique of their work and attacks on them personally, whether they are dishing out PA or being unable to take critique. All continue discussion only as long as it takes to establish their preferred edit onto mainspace. They then leave discussion, with major points and often the original central points unaddressed. I think it was the meatpuppet gangs, more than the veneer of participation that pulled the wool over my eyes, when I had seen this MO many times on Wikipedia; I was quite surprised to find that this had happened in each and every single discussion where there was any amount of contention with the notable exception of Oblivion:Sigil Stone (part-time and informative editor of reasonable firmness, Rhomphaia). Oblivion:Houses, Oblivion:Varon Vamori, Oblivion:Soul Gem, Oblivion:Marksman Training, and Oblivion:The Elven Maiden and their talk pages all follow this same pattern. Anarchangel 20:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

is it a good idea to go [Preist of order robe] and [Preist of order hood] and be a melee?[edit]

Hello Anarchangel,i was just wandering if that being a melee w/ [Order preist robe/hood] and the [Sword of jyggalag] a good idea for a charactor?


When all related to gameplay is removed in the name of RP, or replaced with codecruft, UESP will be redundant to the game itself, or CS wiki Anarchangel (talk)

It wasn't removed in the name of RP. First person isn't allowed on any encyclopedia. Most of it was removed with the note that it should go on the skill page, not the quest page, as someone looking for ways to level sneak isn't going to go to the quest page, but to the sneak page. Other than those two things, the only thing removed was duplicate information that was already on the page somewhere. I'm really not sure what the issue is... Jeancey (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2015 (GMT)
RP is just my hunch, and is little more than a note to myself that I placed on my own talk page. However, since you are seeking an explanation:
First person is "I". "You" is Wikipedia:Second person, and the standard for walkthroughs. I prefer "the player" for a truly neutral "voice". The article still says "you". Gameplay tactics for a unique NPC that is not part of the main storyline should probably not be added to a strategy overview like the Sneak article (tactics are situational, where strategies work in many situations). Since the NPC only exists during the quest, it makes sense to put it on the quest page. Anarchangel (talk)
The style guide dictates otherwise. We have specific pages for general advice on skill training as well as sections on each individual skill page which offer specific advice. It makes much more sense to list the information on those places with an internal link to the relevant quest article than to have the information spread across hundreds of articles, which is why I removed it. When I said "poor POV", I was referring to the fact that mentions of roleplaying fall outside the scope of gamespace articles, which is why that clause wasn't appropriate (it can be hard to explain some changes briefly enough for an edit summary.) The rest of the content I removed was because the wording was incredibly clumsy, and the same thing could have been said with much fewer words. Zul do onikaanLaan tinvaak 20:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
What part of "Gameplay tactics...should probably not be added to a strategy...Sneak article" implies I support "redundant duplication"? Or perhaps you believe that a more wideranging mention of "quest NPCs" should be added to the Oblivion:Sneak article? There is nothing about that there currently.
I will take it that my hunch that RP was involved was in part correct.
And finally, I have never accepted demolition as a substitute for repair. It was not the best writing on the wiki, but "do better or leave it alone" is a policy that advantages everyone. Anarchangel (talk)
There are certain people who focus almost entirely on why or how something was added rather than what was added. Wikis, as I'm of no doubt you are aware, are full of unique eccentricities to which we must adapt. 'The player' is a perfectly fine substitute for 'you', but the whole article must be one or the other for consistency. When a new note is added it is up to the poster to make it readable, if it is not then there is no obligation to attempt to discern the meaning and rewrite it. However, 'your' note was not new, merely moved from the main part of the article and then bludgeoned off the page. That said, I agree with its removal, skill training is for the skill page. Subtle hints at exploiting/using the quest can be put in the text, such as how the ghost moves slowly through an area where there are no enemies. In a way, quest pages are already redundant after including the quest stages, we simply use more words to explain how to follow an arrow.
So, I hope you haven't been put off by this after your return, and I hope you stick around and become a regular contributor once again. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 00:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
MY note here, on this talk page, at the top of this section of it, is what I was referring to, and it most certainly is mine. While the hunch about why the section was removed was pure speculation of the kind I was not comfortable adding even to the article's talk page, it has been proven to be at least in part correct. More importantly, the conclusion that without gameplay material, UESP is for scholars, by scholars? I stand by that statement. There is no "ownership" issue here. The material on the quest page is not even my writing. I just moved it to the notes section. And boy, do I regret not leaving it alone. Anarchangel (talk)

() (edit conflict) You're entitled to your opinions on how things should be done, but we have the style guide for a reason. If everyone edited the wiki according to what they wanted, the entire site would just be a mess. That's why we have the style guide, which gives a universal set of guidelines to follow. Failing that, we defer to consensus. As Silencer says, it isn't our intention to discourage you from editing, but to try and guide you to improve your edits. If you have questions about how to make edits that are more in line with our preferred writing style, I'd be more than happy to answer them. Zul do onikaanLaan tinvaak 02:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)