User talk:Ratwar

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search
Page Archives
Archive Pre-2009
Cheese Wheel


What the hell are you talking about? Sock puppet? This is the first time I've been on since yesterday morning, did you send that message to me by mistake? Who's danu7 and why are you messaging me about him?Sir kris 04:39, 17 January 2009 (EST)

No, that's not my position. My position is that it wasn't me, plain and simple. I work nights on weekdays and sleep during the day, and was fast asleep at the times listed for those comments. Whatever you choose to believe is your business, but I have better things to do than play these kinda games with you. I don't know if they were spammers or if that guy was telling the truth about Chinese internet. All I know is that he/she/they agreed that the delete tag wasn't appropriate (though I would disagree with that danu guy's assertion that my article was somehow "childish"), and some time later I woke up to find some silly "sock puppet" message on my talk page.

The rest is none of my concern. If you're having that many problems with spammers, then I'd advise you to review whatever security measures you have and leave me out of it. I was just trying to contribute something helpful, but clearly it wasn't wanted here, so I'll just publish that and any other tips/walkthroughs to another site that's more welcoming to new ideas. That's the end of it as far as I'm concerned, and I'd appreciate you stop trying to involve me in your site's security problems. I apparently receive an email whenever my talk page is edited, and I'd rather not have my inbox start to get spammed with this nonsense that doesn't even involve me. If you choose to blame it on me instead of investigating the problem, that's fine, but please just leave me out of it. I'm off to bed now, good day to you.Sir kris 15:47, 17 January 2009 (EST)

No auto-patrolling?[edit]

You mentioned on the Patroller Nominations page that you can turn off auto-patrolling of your edits in Preferences. I'm not seeing any such option anywhere. Is it somewhere I've missed, or is it something maybe only available to Admins? --Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 01:54, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

I remember that it used to be an option, but now I believe it's automatic. --GuildKnightTalk2me 14:09, 2 June 2009 (EDT)


You've made some userboxen, so perhaps you could help me. I need to figure out how to change the color of the text for a userbox. Do you know? Ninja Hinder 20:18, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

I know this is Ratwar's talk page; however, you might want to look at this page for some info. :) --Mr. Oblivion(T-C) 20:33, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Oh! Thank you very much, Mr. Oblivion. After going to Wikipedia from a link on that page, I found the answer to my question. Ninja Hinder 21:08, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

All right.[edit]

All right. You want to be to-the-point. Then, if you think the name "Blunt" for axes is not a "misnomer" or misnamer whatever, then you should already remove this sentence that calls the name inappropriate.

Matter of fact, you need to understand a few things, I think. This is an encyclopaedia. If you think it is EVERYBODY who thought why axes were named Blunt, and you thought a reference to this should appear in here, then it is just all right for everybody to read how a thing that seems wrong is actually justified. Then, my friend, if you have to explain HOW, it is going to take some examples. When did that section seem out of context to you? Do you think you can remain to-the-point like "Blade" in an encyclopaedia? Some true Marksman you are. Sometimes, reading a text in an encyclopaedia is so woven in multiple cross-references, that you tend to forget what exactly it was you started reading. But as it is, if the text was right, then it comes back, and it comes back right. The very IMPORTANT conclusion: An Encyclopaedia is always Blunt, not Blade.

That’s all I have to say. For I leave it to you now, since I have seen some childish, too immature, and fully unprofessional behaviour at the Wikipedia. They don’t show any intelligence in following their own rules; it needs to be fortified as an ability. I don't even use the Wikipedia anymore (since 2 years now). So, whenever in life you happen to understand any of this, just go to the page and press “undo”.


Holydoom Witch 00:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure when my balls drop I'll see the logic of your position.--Ratwar 06:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I am unable to continue on your site. Have you any provisions wherein you can delete an account? Please do it for me.

Holydoom Witch 11:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Bye bye! (And no, we don't delete accounts.)--Ratwar 02:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
People using this site are supposed to treat other users with respect and you, as a sysop, have an even greater responsibility to do so. Please explain how your comments achieve this? 08:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm in a cheerful mood, since Georgia Tech won last night, so I'll indulge you. I followed wiki policy, and I assumed good faith. As you can clearly see from this edit, I respectfully changed the user's contributions to the site. He followed this up by being disrespectful to GK as we can see here. Still, I persevered to be nice, and moved the discussion to his user page (and replied in a nice way). Then he proceeded to make the above edits to my own talk page. At this point, I was forced to stop assuming good faith because he made it quite clear that he believed I was a waste of carbon based life form, and that I was possibly involved in a conspiracy with Wikipedia (truthfully, I probably should have stopped assuming good faith after he started calling other users bullies). I responded by insulting myself. He then decided to leave the site, which was purely a personal decision. I bid him farewell and answered his last question. I will concede that my last two comments were seeped in sarcasm, but I assumed good faith for as long as possible and never insulted him personally. Now, if you have a problem with my actions here, or anywhere else, feel free to begin a de-admin request over on the Administrator Noticeboard.--Ratwar 17:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
A de-admin request would be going too far at the moment but I'm sure you realise you went too far in your comments. The comment "I'm sure when my balls drop I'll see the logic of your position" is more than not assuming good faith, it's an insult pure and simple. Other editors on this site have had death threats made against them and didn't feel the need to respond in such a manner.
If anything, the sarcastic "Bye bye!" was even worse, as by that point any spur-of-the-moment irritation should have passed. I hope I don't see any further comments along these lines. That would be cause for a de-admin request as you are supposed to be setting an example. 18:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to answer Ratwar's 'allegations', not to the person speaking for me, for he does not seem to require these. Nor to Ratwar, since Ratwar confirms those as valid allegations. But probably to some third person, who may require these to believe they are right, but only after reading them.

1. " As you can clearly see from this edit, I respectfully changed the user's contributions to the site."

1.As you can clearly see from this edit, I had debunked a very common, but somewhat wrongful assumption on that page. The person who removed the debunk text, did not remove the assumption. I got very furious and thought that perhaps other users would not be allowed to add anything of their own, which, as you can see, is true. The person we are dealing here is an inexperienced admin here, for too academic a task to edit something like encyclopaedia. So the result is, that the encyclopaedia is developing only according to his: Personal Choice, Personal Vision, and Personal Thinking. On a public domain, this happens if the in-charge is not ready to learn, for a variety of reasons.

2. “He followed this up by being disrespectful to GK as we can see here.”

2. If my question was not directed to GK, then I was also not disrespectful to him. If I owe him an apology, that also I can do. But consider, that he is also an admin, and being on the other side of the counter of where I stand, he, in a small way is responsible for any grievances, for which he can deal if the exact same admin is not available. So actually, a question or a topic of an apology does not exist here.

3. “Then he proceeded to make the above edits to my own talk page.”

3. I edited only my own message. Can’t I do even that? If I have to leave a message exclusively for you, then where am I supposed to leave it?

4. “…I was forced to stop assuming good faith because he made it quite clear that he believed I was a waste of carbon based life form…”

4. The person who is here does not like a friendly suggestion, it seems. He especially despises the suggestion that he needs to learn more than what he already knows.

5. “… he believed… that I was possibly involved in a conspiracy with Wikipedia…”

5. DEFINITION OF CONSPIRACY: If a person is just simply standing beside us, and we suddenly start shouting, that ‘hey, this person is accusing me of stealing!’ What are we doing? We are very easily putting the onus on THAT poor person to do all the useless explanations like hell! And THIS is a conspiracy!! And so here, I chose to point the real conspiracy of a person in presenting another person’s simple question as an accusation of “conspiracy”, instead of I starting to explain like hell that ‘when did I say that, what conspiracy are you talking about’ etc, etc, etc. I saw the Wikipedia logo down here, was aware they distribute software, but seeing unreasonably and illogically strict attitude of the admins here, I thought may be the same people run this site too. That’s all. (I’m sorry, but I find this “indulging” response of his completely malicious and misleading. I still have to give so many explanations.)

6. “…(truthfully, I probably should have stopped assuming good faith after he started calling other users bullies).”

6. While waiting for Ratwar’s first response, I was in an ‘observation mode’. His first line of his first response on my user page “Nobody on the UESPwiki is a Bully” was enough for me. And what I thought after that inside my mind, can be found right here, on the page you are reading right now. The tone in my response “All Right” above, is all mellowed down. (I deliberately decided to use the word “friend”.)

I wasn’t aware of a de-admin thing till today. But you know what, I would never EVER go for a de-admin thing. Why? Because I believe if a person has taken a task willingly, but lacks skills, then he persevere, and grow with the subject. But since this is only possible when the person is open to realising his shortcomings, and then ALSO learning, and we can’t force anyone to realise their shortcomings, let alone learn, I already left this part on Ratwar, in my response above. I would also never threaten an admin for a de-admin and all that, like the person here did. (I truly consider this to be an insult to the person you are saying this; at least unless he is minimum a culprit of sorts.) As for the language and words a person uses, I think, that should be left only and only to the person who uses them, especially in a public domain. I have nothing on that.

And now for one final piece of explanation. Why I had to use the word “bully”. Ratwar gave so many links, here is one from me: Wikipedia ! Have fun!!!

Holydoom Witch 09:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Because I feel such pointless accusations that are made every once in a while need to be addressed from time to time, please allow me this reply. Suggesting that Ratwar is somehow not behaving as an administrator is a moot point. His actions were purely editorial. He saw an edit that he felt was incorrect, and reverted it. That's every editor's right, and the fact that Ratwar is a patroller/administrator simply means the community trust him enough for it not to have to check each of his edits.
Instead of addressing the actual issue properly, by providing clear arguments why you felt Ratwar's reversion was unjust, you jumped to a tone as if the entire world is working against you. You replied in an ambiguous and hard to understand manner, which doesn't help people trying to understand your position. When Ratwar replies, understandably, with a little less patience, he immediately becomes the target of an always-be-nice crusade that always seems to pop up at the best possible moments.
As an editor who makes a sarcastic comment from time to time as well, I feel the need to point out that there is a significant difference between treating a person with respect, and treating one specific comment a person made. --Timenn-<talk> 10:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


-> "...there is a significant difference between treating a person with respect, and treating one specific comment a person made."
-> "...there is a significant difference between treating a person with respect, and treating one specific time a person misbehaved."

For it was I who had made the comment.

Thanks Holydoom Witch 22:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Just What Did I Do?[edit]

What was it what made you start to hate me so much? –rpehTCE 02:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Explanation Please[edit]

Please indicate exactly which policy gives you the authority to leave a big red box on my page. –rpehTCE 03:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

UESPWiki:Etiquette, and once again Rpeh, please, get some sleep before continuing this. We're heading on a road nobody wants to go down.--Ratwar 03:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Please also see UESPWiki:Blocking Policy and the multiple unofficial warnings you have been given for further explanation of the warning. –Eshetalk 03:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
No... you're totally right there, Chris; Amy. I guess I have to stop defending you now. All I wanted to do was to talk to SerCenKing. You got involved where you weren't wanted to do something that wasn't required. And you claim it's not personal. Nobody will believe you. –rpehTCE 03:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Jesus I've come back straight into a warzone here! I never saw Rpeh do anything wrong when I was here before and I really don't see any evidence now that justifies a block now. This really is ridiculous, a block won't solve anything! The whole point of the blocking system is to prevent damage to the wiki by repeating vandals who clearly do not want to make any constructive edits. This is a label label rpeh clearly does not deserve. -Itachi 18:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Not really a war zone, you're about a month late for that. Anyways, my opinions on Rpeh has been heavily influenced by multiple things during the fall, most of them happening after he resigned from his position as an administrator on the site under extreme duress. Since then, there were a series of events that occurred both on the UESP itself (mainly via proxies) and external sites, which were linked to rpeh. I would rehash them further, but I really don't want to spend Christmas talking about them. If you want to think of me as an out of control administrator who's persecuting rpeh because I am a monkey-cat hybrid, go ahead.--Ratwar 01:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent Warning to Nikofeelan[edit]

I am not trying to vandalize anything, the last edit I made was only a request that any future members do not add the factions. I did not know it would vandalize. I apologize. I thought I was doing the wiki a favor. From now on, I will think twice before editing.Nikofeelan 03:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It isn't because you have vandalized the site (which you didn't) why you got a warning, it was because you were told stop adding the information but since you just kept adding it, you officially created an edit war, that's why you got a warning. I have no doubt that you were assuming good faith, so simply stop adding the info back again and again, instead you can start a discussion to change the guidelines in the page that Ratwar provided, or a discussion in the article's talk page. --MC S'drassa T2M 03:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't activate account on UESP forums[edit]

No matter how many times I click resend activation email (, I get nothing. And I don't have any spam filters or anything active. I'm supposed to contact the board administrator (that's you, right?) for situations like this, but I see no links on UESP forums with which to do that, so I'm posting it here.

Makatak 20:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

UESP Forums[edit]

It would appear the forums have died and have been dead all day from what I've heard. I was simply wondering if you knew what was up? If you have any news I can relay it to others as well. Cactus 04:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue has been fixed. See Daveh's Talk Page. --DKong27 Talk Cont 15:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Could I be unbanned from the forums[edit]

I have been user banned and ip banned from the forums for a year now and I think that whatever I did I don't remember at this point it was a year ago, would be served out my user name is candc4 and my ip is in my sig-- 23:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If Ratwar doesn't mind, I'd like to reply as a forum moderator. Unfortunately, bans are used as last resorts on the forums for members who do not take moderators' suggestions to follow the rules, and because of this unfortunately we do not often reverse these decisions. We ask all forum members to kindly familiarize themselves with the forum rules and abide by them, and sadly we cannot accept members who do not appear willing to do so. Because of that, and because it is a unified staff decision, I can make no promises, but you are more than welcome to go to my talk page as well if you'd like us to reconsider. Avron the S'wit 21:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back![edit]

Now there's a name I haven't seen in quite a while. Nice to see you back! Robin Hoodtalk 03:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Though I can't promise I'll stay. I've had a little extra time, and decided to put it to good use.--Ratwar 03:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


Yay, all the deletions evar! Thanks for zapping that pile o' stuff! :D eshetalk 03:39, 9 June 2013 (GMT)

It is the least I could do :). I gotta earn my keep around here occasionally. --Ratwar (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2013 (GMT)


Thanks for the deletions earlier. If you're interested in doing a few more, can you have a look through the template deletions and see if I proposed them, then do those ones? I don't think I've proposed anything other than templates. Thanks if you can, but if not, I'll wrangle another admin into doing them. :) Robin Hood  (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I got one more that you had marked - didn't see any others. -Ratwar (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought I had a few, but on reviewing, the only other one I see is: Alt Link. Good to see you back, btw! Robin Hood  (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)