User talk:Brf

Old Archive

2010 Archive

Branwen

Is a Proper noun, the content the user provided was not the meaning of the word, only how the word was used in mythology. Notice how on the rest of the content, the names are broken down, with translations to english, that describe the overall meaning of the word being broken down. Take that in consideration of your recent revision. — Unsigned comment by Western3589 (talk • contribs) on 21 jan 2011

There are already other entries like that, such as the one for "Punammu". All it lists as a reference is a Proper name for a god. --Brf 20:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That is not Etymology. Those references should be placed in the Easter egg section if anything. The entire article is a mess of unorganized information that isn't being monitored. There is a difference between Etymology, and historical references. It is the study of the meaning of the words, Branwen doesn't mean anything, Branwen however was a character in mythology. However, if the user would have posted,"Brawen, was the god of the sea, her name meaning Bran(Control), wen(sea). However, I have no idea what branwen could mean, but thats what the article is about, not references. Western3589 20:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the page is to tell the probable origin of names in the games. It does not matter if the name has a "meaning" or not. --Brf 21:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The page should then be called something else, because the definition of Etymology is about the meaning of the word. Not where its been used in historical stories. All entries like this should be removed. Heres the Wiki about it. Western3589 21:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Please indent your replies.

If you have a problem with a page, you should be posting on its Talk page. --Brf 21:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with only indenting every other post, that way a giant staircase style discussion isn't slowly stretching the page right, as long as there is a difference of indentation to distinguish a different post, but its your talk page. I'll put the suggestion on the talk, my only concern with the whole matter is that the page is a mess itself, and the less incorrect additions on it the better. I'll probably start a project on reorganizing it to something more eye appealing. — Unsigned comment by Western3589 (talk • contribs)02:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Take a read of the Talk page. It looks like they are pretty-much allowing the questionable origins anyway. In this particular case, the true etymology of the word is: Bran(Raven), wen(white) --Brf 03:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Blind

The spell reward for the Staff of the Silver Dawn quest is unique and is not listed anywhere. . .why would we not want to define it? 75.63.124.225 09:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would we need to define it? We do not need to clutter up quest pages with every single statistic. --Brf 12:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I see. I guess perhaps I'm confused as to the point of this entire site, then =D 75.63.124.225 21:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The proper place for the statistic is probably on the spells page. That particular one is not listed, but probably should be. --Brf 23:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"??"

Hey Brf, I was just curious why this post was deleted? It seems quite relevant. RaidensTechSupp 02:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

All that was was someone tacking "unsigned" to the end of another post. The word "unsigned" served no purpose. --Brf 15:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I see there was a poorly formatted addition several lines down. I just checked it in the CS, and it is not true anyway. --Brf 15:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Big revert

Sorry about that, I began by giving advice about the problem at hand, but only the first sentance of anything I said had anything to do with the actual subject. I eventually realized this and added my advice to the IP addresses talk page instead. My bad :-D!--Catmaniac66 12:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Some of his initial post probably belonged on a User page, but most was more appropriate for a forum, or a chatroom. --Brf 21:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Quick Note

If you cut & paste warning text instead of just using the Give Warning button on UESPWiki:Messages, you'll want to remove the <includeonly></includeonly> tags in the signature so that it works correctly. – Robin Hood↝talk 05:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Dude...

That was not already mentioned. It says you can get her back out , but with this one , you can't. The simple fact is she stays in Tel Arhun , while she thinks she is at the camp. JackTurbo95 19:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The other note already mentions she can get stuck getting out of the cage. What tunnel are you talking about? All you have to do is walk her to the boat and then walk her overland from Vos to the camp. --Brf 19:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The tunnel where you have to take her through to get her back to the camp. In otherwords the one which connects Tel Arhun to the port. JackTurbo95 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I have never taken her through a tunnel. I have always walked her overland.

I do find it interesting that you do not have to actually walk her to the camp. I will put back the note, edited a little, and re-check it in the CS tonight. --Brf 19:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I am doing the same quest now so I will try it again. It is quite strange , but I thought it was notable. JackTurbo95 19:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oblivion talk:Crime nonsense?

Okay I admit that was nonsensical. But since it was originally moved with that attached to it can we really call it nonsense (It was moved here by the way)? It seems to be part of the original message, so doesn't that make it an edit to another users post? It seems to be an almost impossible judgement call if we can call part of an edit good, and the other part bad.

Or am I somehow missing something? Either way I am just curious of the logic behind removing that (Technically speaking) nonsense. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 21:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The part I removed was

<math>Insert formula here</math>

which is certainly nonsense and serves no purpose in the post. Likely, it was some sort of placeholder for a spambot, or an accidental keystroke by the original editor. --Brf 13:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry forgot this was an Archive

[1]

Corprus (Morrowind: Diseases)

The discription was added via copy/paste by me right from the Construction Set. It's one of two dscriptions, the other one being "Corprus is a deadly disease that attacks a victim's mind and body. Victims grow mad and violent, and their bodies sprout wild, revolting growths. This disease comes from contact with corprus beasts or other blight monsters" but since that is a variation only told by one Ashlander Wise Woman while the other version is the opinion of several persons including an apothecary and a healer I thought of it as the more medical appropriate summary ;) — Unsigned comment by Shimenawa (talk • contribs) on 8 May 2011

Yes. There are several in the CS that say that. --Brf 22:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Permanent Corpses (Morrowind: Cheats)

As I explained on the talk page for Morrowind: Cheats, once the permanent Golden Saints are dead, their corpses cannot be removed, or at least on my version of the game. I posted this a while ago, and since nobody replied, I thought I'd put it into the article. Would you kindly explain why you reverted this edit? Perry Stalsis 16:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is it needed? The cheat is about having permanent Golden Saints fighting for you. Why would their corpses be relevant? --Brf 16:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Well it is slightly annoying when you realise you've permanently covered the floor with corpses that you will never be able to get rid of. If I'd been warned about this before I used them I might have decided not to. Now there are random Golden Saints lying about the place, which can, believe it or not, be quite an eye-sore. Surely any significant side-effect is relevant. Perry Stalsis 17:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

An eyesore? How many times are you going to go back into a cave that had a Dagoth in it? Personally, I never remove corpses unless I want the monster to respawn quicker. I would not be bothered by an extra corpse in an area I will never revisit. --Brf 17:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I see a compromise! If the bodies could be permanent corpses, it could be added to the cheat page as a way to get permanent corpses anywhere you want them. This would satisfy it being a cheat and also telling people that the corpses will be there forever.--Catmaniac66 17:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Morrowind:Magic Apparel by Effect

The price really is disproportionate! Aye, I did speculate, but what of the rest of the edit? — Unsigned comment by MrTea (talk • contribs) on 31 may 2011

You can see the price is unusually high just by looking at it. There is no need to have a note to point out the obvious --Brf 11:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I added in the observation because there is at least one other item on that page that makes mention of an unusually high price. All I did was copy and paste the text used for the Flamemirror Robe to make the page more consistent. If you feel strongly that it's not worth pointing out, I suggest that you remove the note from any other items on the page to retain consistency. Personally, my opinion is that the note serves the purpose of informing the reader that they are not staring at a typo. Typos do crop up and in my short time here I've edited out one that showed a duration for one of the shrines being half what it was actually set to and this actually set it apart from all the other shrines of the same type just as the item that led to this discussion stands apart from similar items. I happened to be in the CS and could easily view this so I could see that it was a typo. My personal preference is to keep the notes on these oddly-priced items and, unless bandwidth policy needs to take precedent here, I see little reason to exclude them. --MrTea 03:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Your Right

Sorry about changing your edit, I underdstand the abreviation needs a fullstop I thought you was changerig the syntax of the sentance. --Manic 20:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I hate to butt in, but you're both right; both periods should technically be used since the each perform a separate function. Dlarsh^(T,C) 20:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. But I am pretty sure that

etc.).

would not be correct. I was always under the impression that if last word in the sentence already had a stop, followed by other punctuation, that you would not add another stop. --Brf 21:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Both are necessary. Because the Ect. full stop is not intended to mean end sentence. So I have corrected it. --Manic 21:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It might look weird, but the full stop on "etc." is only for the abbreviation, similar to:

"Mr. Johnson, hello."

The dot after Mr doesn't signify the end of the sentence. For that reason, a full stop should still be present if there's an abbreviation in front of a bracket. --Legoless 21:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

According to answers.com, the second period is required if the parenthesis is there. Otherwise, the one period would end the sentence too if there were no punctuation afterward. --Brf 21:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

(←) Yep. Gotta love English; even our punctuation is confusing :P Dlarsh^(T,C) 21:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Headquarters

"Their headquarters is" vs "Their headquarters are".
Headquarters is a plural noun - see [2]. There is no singular, therefore "are" is correct. To be singular it would have to be headquarter, which exists only as a verb (to headquarter) not as a noun. Even if there were only one Berserker, he/she could not have a headquarter, only headquarters.
I'll not undo your undo, but it should (IMO) be undone (if that makes any sense).
Screwball 13:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Not according to Yahoo! Answers. It's a collective noun used in a singular context. "Is" is correct. --Legoless 14:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

As someone who got an A in English, I agree with Legoless - is, is for singular, are is for plural. Eg Their headquarter is located at deepscorn hollow. - Their headquarters are located at deepscorn hollow, vilverin and Sideways Cave. --Manic 14:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There's another British/American difference here. See this Wikipedia section or this other page. In this case "is" is clearly correct, since it's standard in US English and at least allowable in UK. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate Warning

Giving a warning to an editor who has made a good-faith edit is not appropriate. The only circumstance where I could see that warning being appropriate is if the editor was edit-warring, but a total of two edits to a page, made 28 hours apart, is hardly edit warring. And a warning on the grounds that a single patroller (you) had previously removed the content is similarly troublesome. (Unless you want to count DKong's edit, but that was six months ago, and he has played no role in the subsequent discussion). In this case, the editor has made an impressive effort to justify his edit on the talk page and has provided perfectly sound edit summaries for the edits he's made to the article. You have been the only editor voicing any opinion to the contrary, and your status as a patroller does not give you any special privileges to unilaterally make a decision in your favour.

If you felt that this issue was important enough to warrant all of this extra effort, you should have contacted some other editors and asked for their opinions. Or just let the edit stay in place on the article. It's not adding any false information, and if in the long term other editors have an opinion about the information they can then add to the discussion.

I know you had good intentions when making the warning, but warnings are a very serious issue, especially to the person receiving the warning. In the long run, a warning such as this is far more damaging to the site than the original edit -- damaging in terms of potentially losing a knowledgeable contributor, and damaging in terms of the bad impression it gives to others who notice the incident, such as Kerta48. --Nephele^Talk 18:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I was defending DKong's edit. --Brf 18:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're defending an edit, it should be based upon your own research and conclusions, not just based upon blindly enforcing what someone else has done. --Nephele^Talk 18:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, this edit is based on my own experience as far as the gameplay effect is concerned. Even the user in question agrees to that. The question is whether we should be reporting a secondary side-effect as a primary effect. In the end I suppose it does not matter too much, although it might be misleading. --Brf 18:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Your distinction between a "secondary side-effect" and a "primary effect" is ambiguous, particularly as you made no effort to define it yourself. You mentioned no experience of your own in the discussion, so I used my own and the experience of other editors who had contributed previously ("One should be aware that incredibly hight strenght will result in your wepon breaking after 1 use", "Yes I've also noticed this, when I increased my Strength to 100k via console. I killed everything I touched, but my weapons also broke after one hit.") to support my arguments. You cited no gameplay experience, whether of others or your own, when replying to my points. --87.112.240.109 19:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Yes, with high strength you can do more damage to your weapons, but I think this, along with my other example of higher speed, belong more in a note than a list of direct effects. Something like "Side effects of increasing strength are: Higher speed, broken weapons, jumping high..." A list of secondary effects something like that. --Brf 20:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)