User talk:Philbert

Welcome

Hello! Welcome to UESPWiki. It's always good to have new members. If you would like to help improve any of our pages, you may want to take a look at the following links:

• Policies and Guidelines: UESPWiki standards and expectations
• Quick Editing Guide: a quick guide to wiki markup
• Getting Started: how you can help

If you, on the other hand, would like to spice up your userpage, take a look at this link:

• Userboxes: near complete list of userboxes, including a guide to make your own

When you're editing, it's always a good idea to leave edit summaries to explain the changes you have made to a particular page, and remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes ~~~~. Also, the "show preview" button is a great way to view the changes you've made so far without actually saving the page (our patrollers really appreciate it!).

Feel free to practice editing in the sandbox or discuss the games in the forums. If you need any help, don't hesitate to contact one of our mentors. Have fun! --elliot (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Correcting Other People's Posts

Just FYI, correcting other people's posts is usually frowned upon. In the case of fixing a capital, I don't see it as being a problem, but I thought I'd mention it for future reference. There are a few other cases where it's allowed, such as formatting, fixing a link, or adding a signature, but if it's just spelling and grammar, generally you shouldn't. See the Vandalism page (specifically, the section marked "Altering Comments") for more info. – Robin Hood↝talk 23:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Philbert 03:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I don't think it's a big deal for just capitalizing, but sometimes people get offended when you correct them, and for spelling, there's always a risk that what you thought the word should be was not actually what they meant. That only applies to talk pages, of course. If you see article issues, correct away! :) – Robin Hood↝talk 05:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Signing

Hey, just wanted to tell you that you don't need to add ~~~~ to your edit summaries--it doesn't actually do anything there, even though on pages it adds your signature; we can already see who you are on the page history :) Vely^►t►e 17:42, 30 August 2013 (GMT)

Thanks!! Philbert (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2013 (GMT)

Damn, did it again on the Enchanting Page - Habits die hard :) Philbert (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2013 (GMT)

Editing an Archived Page

Please don't edit archived talk pages as you did here. Those discussions are years old and it is very unlikely that the original posters on that page are still around looking for answers. There's also a banner at the top of the page that clearly says, "Do not edit the contents of this page". •WoahBro^►talk 02:28, 20 November 2014 (GMT)

OK, I didn't see the banner, my apologies ! — Unsigned comment by Philbert (talk • contribs) at 03:43 on 20 November 2014 (GMT)

In addition, it's also best to avoid posting replies to discussions that are more than 3 months old (like this). We call this "necroposting", and we tend to discourage it because there's rarely any use in continuing discussions that old. It's fine to comment on old discussions if there's some unresolved issue, but for cases like that one where the question had been answered, it's best to leave it alone. Thanks! Zul se onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 14:15, 24 January 2015 (GMT)

I was adding to the information in that section, rather than add a new section, for any that may visit the "Talk" page as I do to learn what others have found. In this case it was relevant information, additional to the topic, and found recently through game-play. I will add new sections in the future but that seems to clutter up the talk pages and disassociates the topics. Also, it was my understanding that the term "necroposting" applied after approximately 1 year in this type of forum. Remember, these "talk" pages are read by others than the original poster looking for help or clarification. — Unsigned comment by Philbert (talk • contribs) at 15:14 on 24 January 2015 (GMT)

On this wiki, the cut-off for necroposting is about 3 months, give or take. After that point, if there aren't any more vitally important revelations, it's best to make a new discussion. Talk pages can be archived, so there's no need to worry about cluttering up pages or losing the visibility of discussions either. Zul se onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 02:58, 26 January 2015 (GMT)

OK, Thanks for the clarification :) Philbert (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2015 (GMT)

To Patrollers, Admin's or others that come here in response to a posting of mine. Whenever I post to a talk page (the archive page was an error on my part) or make an edit to a main page (something I try not to do) I consider carefully the information value of what I have to say, verify the information in game as best I can, and word my response to be as clear and precise as possible so it can be verified by others. I also back check previous responses, including archived pages, to make sure a question posed has not been answered elsewhere, including on the main page. I also carefully consider the question of "necroposting" based on the age of the question or thread, type of question asked, evaluate other identical or similar questions that have been raised in different headings that have also gone unanswered, the weight of the question (is it just fluff, a one off problem that may never occur again, or does an answer give value or clarification to the subject), etc. In other words, I am very careful to make sure I don't become a troll and am fully aware of the added work any additions I make give to the patrollers who then have the task of considering my addition for validity, a job I feel that by and large they do well with my thanks!

I, for one, do not believe in splitting an answer off from its original thread as it disassociates the answer from the question (unless its an archive page which is an entirely different subject.) I have seen those split thread topics and they are extremely difficult and confusing to follow the thread or thought process of the thread posters.

I do make mistakes. I have asked and answered my own questions by doing stupid in game errors. I try not to, but I'm only human.

I refer you to the discussion thread below. I have read it, understood the the issues involved, and do not want to add controversy to such a difficult and often subjective subject. However, my goal, and I think all of our goals, is to make this wiki informative to all and make its information the best available. In that light, I will continue to add information after the careful considerations listed above. If a patroller sees fit to believe it is wrong then it is only a matter of a difference of opinion.

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/UESPWiki:Community_Portal#Slow_Reversions_Please.21  

Philbert (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2015 (GMT)

Discussing Controversial Edits

Just for future reference, when there's disagreement over an edit being reverted, it's good practice not to re-add it until the issue has been resolved. It's perfectly fine to create a talk page discussion about a controversial edit, as you did here, but re-adding it before the discussion is complete should be avoided, as it can lead to confrontation and edit-warring. In that particular instance, the note you added was about Halldir, an NPC for which a separate article exists. According to the style guide's section on redundancy, "Adding content to the wiki is only useful if the content is organized and presented in a way that makes it easy for all readers to find the information. This means that generally a topic will have a single page (or a section of a page) where the topic is discussed in full detail...Only information that is directly relevant to a given page should be included on the page."

You may want to read over our article on consensus, as it contains a lot of useful information about how editing disagreements are typically resolved. Thanks for your time, and let me know if you have any questions. Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 19:12, 8 March 2015 (GMT)

I'll read that, thanks. Thats why (to avoid a "revert war") I didn't do a revert but changed it to a note instead and pointed to the talk page in the comments section. I was not going to do a third edit. If he reverted again, as he did before moving it, I would have left it alone. I'm not a edit/revert warrior LOL. I still think I had the proper relevance "and I'm always right except when I'm wrong which is most of the time" :) But its not a big deal one way or another - its been noted somewhere and thats the important part.

btw, I've done that quest dozens of times over the years and never knew those ghost clones were lootable because they disappear so fast. Surprised the heck out of me when I hovered over one and I could loot it but it disappeared before I could click the loot button. I had to reload 3 times before I got all 3 too which is why I got the fast timing of their disappearance.Philbert (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2015 (GMT)