User talk:Dinmenel

Belated Welcome!

Hello Dinmenel!

Have a belated welcome to UESPWiki. Although you've been around a while, here's the usual list of useful pages, since they're always nice to have near at hand:

• Policies and Guidelines
• Help Contents
• Quick Editing Guide
• Getting Started
• Image Guidelines

It's good to see you editing again. Also, if you would like to spice up your userpage, take a look at the Userboxes page, and feel free to discuss the games in the forums. Anyway, welcome back and have fun!   ~Shuryard (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2015 (GMT)

Falmer

Hi Dinmenel. Your recent edits to Lore:Falmer aren't quite in line with our guidelines. While the encyclopaedic nature of the wiki usually demands neutrality, the in-universe view of the Falmer is that of a twisted monster, not an oppressed race. This view is backed up by the relevant references, and your changes are not based on fact. If you'd like to discuss the issue, feel free to bring it up here, rather than continuing to re-add it to the page. —Legoless (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2015 (GMT)

Which guidelines are my edits not in line with? There is no singular 'in-universe view' of anything. If the article's language were neutral and it merely stated that many people in Tamriel seem to think the Falmer are monsters, I would not have a problem. Not sure how my changes are not factual. I have opened the issue on the talk page. -Dinmenel (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2015 (GMT)

Morrowind Dialogue

I still can't remember who was planning on making that page, but you might want to talk to Hargrimm. He extracted all the dialogue into a searchable .csv file, and that might be helpful for you. Jeancey (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2015 (GMT)

Thanks! I will send him a message. I'm working on the page here if you didn't see it in the update list. I'd appreciate feedback! - Dinmenel (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2015 (GMT)

Skooma

This is not constructive. Generalised references for information taken from gameplay is standard in lorespace, and it would be far more prudent to bring your concerns up here rather than passive-aggressively edit warring. Your work on updating the Skooma article is appreciated, but please be aware of the warning at the bottom of all edit pages: "if you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here". Going to the talk page first is always the smoother option if you have a problem with an edit. —Legoless (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2015 (GMT)

No offense, but that warning applies to you as well. If you wished to a) add information that is never stated or implied and fail to cite explicitly what game event you were thinking of and b) remove links that are vital for readers to track down the source of a piece of information, then you should have raised the issue on the talk page first. -Dinmenel (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2015 (GMT)

Specific references are encouraged in the lore guidelines, just not mandatory. I wouldn't call generalized links "standard", so much as active contributors often don't feel the need to cite more specifically. There's nothing wrong with it, per se; specific links are exceptional, but they need no exception.

But Dinmenel, if you had reason to doubt Legoless' additions to the page, adding a {{fact}} tag to those sentences and making a talk page discussion would be a better approach than removing them without explanation. And if you really removed them without explanation as a form of retaliation, that's pretty much the epitome of edit-warring. Please take care to resolve your disagreements in a dispassionate and constructive manner. Insignificant Revisions^{Threats•Evidence} 23:00, 21 April 2015 (GMT)

My main issue with your linked refs is their combination of the specific and the vague. Instead of having multiple linked "Events of Skyrim", something like "Elder Knowledge quest in Skyrim" would be the best way to cite it. However, this level of specifics has never been a requirement. —Legoless (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2015 (GMT)

It wasn't intended as retaliation - Legoless made positive contributions to the article that I did not change, as did Jeancey. I also did not intend the message to be passive aggressive, though I can see how it can be read that way. Actually, if you check the history of that page you'll see an admin left me a much more overtly passive aggressive message, fwiw. I understand the issue with how I cited things now and will do it more specifically in the future. As far as the information that I removed: I've used the wiki for a lot of years and been led astray by vague citations to 'events of [game]' too many times to accept something cited that way unless I remember myself exactly what it refers to. Looking at other history pages, I have commonly seen baseless changes reverted without much explanation, so it seemed to me that it was acceptable, and that if Legoless had issue with my removal, it was on them to open the issue on the talk page. -Dinmenel (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2015 (GMT)

Unused User Image

Hello. A few months ago, I proposed the deletion of one or more of your user images because they are not used anywhere on the wiki. You can view them at Category:Marked for Deletion. Please respond here or remove the {{prod}} tag on the images you would like to keep, if you are using the image in a way that cannot be seen via the "What Links Here" page or plan to use the image within the next few months.

If you do not respond within a month, the images will be deleted, although you can request any particular image to be restored if needed later on. —Dillonn241 (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)