Wikia

WoWWiki

Frejya

2,060 Edits since joining this wiki
October 26, 2007
Revision as of 07:07, November 4, 2010 by M.mendel (Talk | contribs)

| User:Frejya
Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Fandyllic (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2009

Proper welcome

I gave you a proper welcome. Hope you don't mind. Just Alerting You Small Howbizr(t·c) 9:51 PM, 21 Sep 2009 (EDT)

Question about Ashenvale update.

I was wondering where did you get your new info for Ashenvale and whats your source. Im working on a major article and confirming your source and info would allow me to update the article I'm working on. And also hi. Random aren't I? Rimor Conscientia (talk) 20:17, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

My source is myself :P I've gone on my flying mount throughout all the zones I've edited and jotted down every change I came across while playing the Beta. I suppose I could link the sticky I've got in the Cataclysm forums of the regular Warcraft forums, if that would help at all. Frejya (talk) 20:39, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That would be helpful. Rimor Conscientia (talk) 20:45, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Consider it done :) Thanks for pointing it out, as I need to do this with the other zones I've posted on! Frejya (talk) 20:49, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Image(Cataclym)

You don't have to put (Cataclym) after every image name, I mean doing it for places like Fray Island is one thing, but doing for something new like the Hornblower is weird because it implies that there is a Hornblower image from either the original wow, the burning crusade, or even from wrath of the lich king. --Sairez (talk) 05:20, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

That's just how I'm saving them on my computer. There's no harm in doing it, as the reader doesn't see the actual file name unless they click on the picture - plus, it's just as much of an inference to say that the (Cataclysm) denotes something that was added and/or changed during the Cataclysm.Frejya's RingFrejya 05:21, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
Thats true I was just worried that someone would check the file name and end up assuming that something new existed before the Cataclysm and then panic when they couldn't find the original file. So in a way I just want to make sure no one gets a headache or feel stupid, because lets face if you were searching for something that didn't exists you would feel quite foolish, am I correct? --Sairez (talk) 05:33, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
Each picture is associated with a page or section that is distinctly tied to the Cataclysm. Each picture makes a point in the caption to point out it is from the Cataclysm, and those pictures that do not are usually clumped into the Cataclysm section as either a gallery or File.Frejya's RingFrejya 05:38, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
You expect everyone to realize that? Their are those out there who may just focus on what the article says and not focus on Cataclysm-Logo-Small on the zone template or they may just skim through the articles and not pay attention to separate sections. To be honest I don't want to get into an argument so why don't we call just this a faith thing. You have more faith people in other people than I do. Though in my defense I have met some rather interesting and foolish people. Well I hope you have a good day and night, Frejya. --Sairez (talk) 05:53, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to take it up with an admin if you feel so strongly about it.Frejya's RingFrejya 05:54, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

I've been following this conversation... I personally don't mind either way. Frejya names the images better than most with or without the (Cataclysm). User:Coobra/Sig4 06:02, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

First I had to learn how to upload them - what a treat that was :P Thanks, Coobra :) Frejya's RingFrejya 06:08, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
To be honest I don't care which way the images are established. Frejya made good points on how someone would know that an image is new even with the (Cataclysm) behind the image name. I just didn't want to deal ignorant people who would ignore the facts and just focus on the name of an image article. Luckily I never met someone like that before, though I've heard of people like that. So Frejya we cool? --Sairez (talk) 06:19, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
Cool as cucumbers. No worries. Frejya's RingFrejya 06:22, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
Thats cool. --Sairez (talk) 06:32, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

NPC template

I see you're still adding icons with the {{NPC}} template using the old way. An easier way has been fitted for it. Instead of using the parameter smallicon= and the long file's name, you can simply use the icon= parameter and just the creature you want (with gender if needed). Example. =) User:Coobra/Sig4 01:25, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out :) Was one of my first forays into editing that type of thing - thanks for posting the link to the example, too! Frejya's RingFrejya 05:17, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Quick Question

I've been wondering with the Forsaken bolstering their numbers and using the Val'kyr do the Kor'kron Overseers along with Overseer Kraggosh and Bragor Bloodfist still reside in the Undercity in Cataclysm? --Sairez (talk) 00:25, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Good question - I'm not certain that the cities have received their 'polishes' or final touches for the expansion. As it stands right now UC still has a strong Kor'kron presence and I haven't heard anything suggesting that will change. I can't recall the entirety of the Silverpine quest line, but I think the powers that be are less than enthused by the Forsaken's new allies. Frejya's RingFrejya 00:48, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
Your right the powers that be are less than enthused by the Forsaken's new allies. So they may just leave them there... Well we will find out when they update the capital cities and stuff. Hope you have a good day. --Sairez (talk) 18:02, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is desired

Hey, I just wanted to solicit your opinions on whether WoWWiki should leave Wikia - let me know if you have any questions, or just post them there on the forums. --PcjWoWWiki admin (TDrop me a line!C62,301 contributions and counting) 21:53, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

Over on the "Next Steps for WoWWiki" forum, you state that you're trying to be neutral, and express surprise that "just by virtue of pointing out how wikia is within its bounds to request certain activities be suspended on their site " you are thought not to be. Let me explain.

Your argument goes that because Wikia have the technical means to shape the site, they also have the right to, and they're graciously granting it to all the editors (those that aren'tin their employ, anyway). Consider a paid web hosting service. The service has the means to modify the website I'm hosting with them, but they'd be in breach of contract if they did because I own the site, I am in fact responsible for it, and they are merely responsible for the hosting. Such was the unwritten contract with Wikia when wowwiki (and my own wiki) moved to Wikia: they'd do the hosting, we'd do the content. The community is responsible for the content on the wiki, Wikia runs ads and is responsible for the hosting. What I've outlined here is the community's view: in a nutshell, it goes: The community owns the content, Wikia hosts it for them. When Wikia makes prescriptions what to put on the sitenotice or on the talkpages and threatens to use their technical access to force them, they are saying somethign else: Wikia is saying, Wikia hosts and owns the content and lets you edit it. This is the stance that allows them to force Oasis against overwhelming community resistance; it is the stance that allows them to re-brand every wiki that used to be an independent community as part of a larger over-site. This is what the conflict is all about.

If you want to remain neutral, you have to recognize that the "wiki community" (defined as the people who created and maintained the content in the past) lay a claim (what pcj calls a "moral right") to the content; that Wikia also claim this content ("for the community that is still there and might be here in the future", but it's really for them); and that to be neutral here means to recognize both claims, to recognize that they're controversial, and that somehow compromises ought to be found.

To support Wikia's point of view in this is not "innocuous", it means taking a side, and to no longer be neutral. This is what you did. --◄mendel► 00:12, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

I'm finished with that conversation. If you couldn't follow it through to its conclusion or see the point I was making, I'm not willing to waste any time on it with someone who appears to be close-minded. Good day. Frejya's RingFrejya 00:18, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

sources

You wrote here: "I searched for what information I could find on it but didn’t get anywhere. I then edited [3] the page with what I thought were the reasons". This comes across to me as saying, "I didn't know any better, but wanted to change it anyway, so I made stuff up". That's probably not the intended meaning, so could you please explain what you did mean? --◄mendel► 07:07, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki