Wikia

WoWWiki

Talk:Kirkburn/Archive05

101,362pages on
this wiki

Back to page | < User talk:Kirkburn

Revision as of 22:15, July 18, 2010 by WoWWiki-Skyfire (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ←Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


Archived 14th April 2007 Edit


Quick Question Edit

Dare I ask if you can upload screen shots on WoWWiki? By screen shots I mean images of NPCs that WoWWiki currently requests? Example: Herod --FieryAxel 17:21, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Right. Just click here. And you can access it from from the left toolbox, just under the Google-tagged searchbox.--K ) (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Of course you can, I even describe how to present them on the image upload page! See the blue box on the right :)  Kirkburn talk contr 18:26, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Alright how do you delete an uploaded picture? It came out horrible. Thanks. --FieryAxel 19:58, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Go to the picture page, click edit and mark it with {{speedydelete}}, and put add a comment as to why.  Kirkburn talk contr 20:09, 13 January 2007 (EST)

It didn't work. I edited the page and all I wrote was {{speedydelete}}, I don't know what you mean by "add a comment" - where? Thanks. --FieryAxel 13:35, 14 January 2007 (EST)

Either under the delete banner, or on the edit summary. You spelt it wrong btw, you put )) instead of }} at the end, thus the non-workyness :)  Kirkburn talk contr 13:39, 14 January 2007 (EST)

Thanks man, I can only hope I'll be as skilled as you with all this WoW Wiki stuff.--FieryAxel 14:18, 14 January 2007 (EST)

Dude I'm still having problems with this. I marked http://www.wowwiki.com/Image:Wtsbones.jpg for speedy deletion using the code you gave me {{speedydelete}}, using ) instead of of } - and it didn't mark it for deletion. What am I doing wrong? Thanks. I need to learn this stuff and I can't find a reasonable/easy guide on WoWWiki explaining it. ~FieryAxel.

No, no, use {{speedydelete}}. Sorry, I can see how you misinterpreted my comment. Help:Contents has lots of useful info along with the guidelines and policies (linked from the contents)  Kirkburn talk contr

Sigs Edit

You've created a sensation, boss-bot. Everywhere I turn, signatures are bearing an uncanny resemblance to yours. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 08:20, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Heh ... well, there's no accounting for taste Smiley  Kirkburn talk contr 09:15, 18 January 2007 (EST)
Now that you mention it, I suddenly feel compelled to box my sig... --Hobinheim (talk · contr) 10:39, 18 January 2007 (EST)
Go against the crowd. Make yours a circle. // Montagg (talk · contr) 15:59, 18 January 2007 (EST)
Granted i liked kirkburn's, but only stole the method as i didn't get show to use sig templates :s. Wanted to do other stuff with mine, but sadly, as always, css is never useful. --Zealtalkcontrweb 10:43, 18 January 2007 (EST)
Excuses, excuses ... :P  Kirkburn talk contr 10:45, 18 January 2007 (EST)

I, for one, shall stick to the standard admin signature. I'll make several subtle statements without taking the time to fiddle.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:12, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Devil May Care Edit

Just thought I'd post this link so visitors here can see this thread. Twas an interesting discussion :) http://forums.scrollsoflore.com/showthread.php?t=1273  Kirkburn talk contr 01:51, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Lol. Just... lol. You come off as a little condescending, but I was really waiting for the lorekeeper dude to post his sign-in. xD--Sky 02:28, 23 January 2007 (EST)
Heh, and thanks for the constructive criticism, always useful to know. :)  Kirkburn talk contr 02:56, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Kirkburn comes off as condescending? Riiight. I'm slightly insulted from a personal standpoint, but there are about three things I have to agree with them on. Their arrogance is astonishing. If they bothered to discuss their reverted edits, we would have sorted it out. Ah, well, such it the way of die-hard loreplayers. In the end, all that will be left is us.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 11:20, 23 January 2007 (EST)

They probably thought I was condescending because I had an answer for all of their arguements, and kept civil the entire time Smiley I do love debating! Indeed, the problem is one of arrogance - we acknowledge the wiki isn't perfect, but some of them have the gall to sit there and tell everyone their own lore wiki will be better because they're making it. So many people I've seen say 'I can't cope with the WoWWiki, I'm going to start my own'. Never works, and eventually they realise that it wasn't the wiki at fault, it was their idealism and lack of foresight.
As you say, every single time the problems would be averted by discussing their edits. I just hope that the thread at least gave them something to think about. Certainly towards the end of the thread there were some positive comments :)
Oh, and Ragestorm, stop writing better answers to all lore answers I give ;)  Kirkburn talk contr 11:32, 23 January 2007 (EST)
Sorry, boss-bot, it's a bit of a proffessional narcotic. I think it wise not for me to get into that discussion. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 11:38, 23 January 2007 (EST)
Lol. I love it really, you give more interesting/less sarcastic answers.  Kirkburn talk contr 11:43, 23 January 2007 (EST)

I'll need to work on that. It does not do for a Head Bookkeeper to be without sarcasm.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 11:53, 23 January 2007 (EST)

It does not do at all! (Kirkburn starts tutting loudly)  Kirkburn talk contr 12:04, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Strange happenings Edit

I was editing night elf earlier, but whenever I went back to the page, all it displys is a blank white. No wiki frame, no links, nothing. I don't know if this is a wiki issue or a browser issue, so I thought I'd best check with you. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 22:35, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Works for me. Added back the proper picture, too.  Kirkburn talk contr 04:43, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Kitty Reminds Me Edit

Kitty reminds me of http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=224.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 17:01, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Illidan Edit

I'm this close <mimes tiny space> to being party to an edit war. Just telling you so that you can knock some sense into me tomorrow. Cheers.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:04, 25 January 2007 (EST)

Illidan's Golden eyesEdit

Were you the one that removed everything on Illidan's eyes? the warcraft encyploedia states that "Little did Illidan know that his eyes actually indicated strong druidic potential". So please tell why you deleted both the druidic potential or the fact that he didn't know about it--Noman953 15:48, Januray 2007

The original wording I felt didn't do it justice. Amber eyes were very well known to be a sign of a great destiny, whereas you made it sound like it was unknown. That whole thing doesn't make much sense anyway - Illidan wasn't a good druid, whereas Malfurion (who had normal coloured eyes) had amazing druidic potential. Very odd. In addition, spell correctly if you're going to blindly revert my edits, and source your information. If you had sourced the info, we wouldn't have this problem.  Kirkburn talk contr 17:29, 29 January 2007 (EST)
If your edits made sense I wouldn't have to blindly revert them. I was under the impression that most people here had enough common sense to know that what's in the warcraft encyclopedia also belongs on the wiki pages since its the most reliable site for lore; guess I was wrong. Wether you feel like he wasn't a good druid doesn't matter because its what Blizzard says. They control the story not you. I suggest you back to Illidan's entry on the warcraft encyclopedia and start reading before you add anything else to Illidan's page. And don't talk to me about problems; you could have edited the statement if you felt something was wrong, not REMOVED it.--Noman953 22:59, Januray 2007
I removed then replaced it with an edited version. If you are going to accuse me of doing things, at least have the courtesy to be right? You didn't provide a source, and your spelling was incorrect. The onus is not on me to go searching to find out if a controversial statement is correct. You also reverted other changes of mine to improve the grammar of the section, which is not appreciated. The original wording made it sound like having golden eyes meant nothing to Illidan, when it meant a great deal. This had nothing to do with my opinions of the sources, and me wanting to control the story. I apologise if you felt my edits were wrong, but again source your information. I did not know that being specifically born with amber eyes meant you had druidic potential.  Kirkburn talk contr 06:41, 30 January 2007 (EST)
You still don't get it do you. The encyclopedia itself says that he was born with the special eyes, UNKNOWN was used to show that at the time he didn't know he had strong druidic potential as the website states. And you just contradicted yourself when you first admitted that you changed it because you felt the whole druid thing didn't suit him because he was a sorceror (reread your first reply), not because a warcraft source said otherwise; that sounds very much like lore controlling behaviour to me. The reason I didn't put the source was because I thought people are up to date on what the encyclopedia says; as an editor you should be. I was under the impression that everyone reads whats on the website as 50 to 60% of all wow wiki information comes from there. But if it'll make you happy I'll provide sources from now on even if its the encyclopedia, which I guess I should have given from the start--Noman953 17:00, 30 Januray 2007
You mistake my comments for an official stance. That was an aside thought, not something I would put in an article. As an editor I do not have to read every article on the encyclopedia, are you seriously suggesting one has to be omnipotent? You are completely wrong about where most of the the info on the wiki comes from by the way - we were around long before Blizzard started cataloguing the info in the encyclopedia, and far more of the information comes from in-game quests, RPG books and the novels. Yes you should be sourcing your statements, especially if they are 'new' or 'odd' info.
The original statement was "Illidan was born with golden eyes, which, unkown to him, indicated stronge druidic potential among night elf men". The wording (and spelling) was dubious. Amber eyes were very significant at the time, but it was unknown to everyone that it could mean strong druidic potential. It lacked context and deeper meaning. In WotA Illidan's eyes were frequently referred to, but the original statement didn't put this across. The current form is now "Unlike this brother, Illidan was born with golden eyes, at the time a sign of a great destiny - however, this actually indicated inherent druidic potential". And yes, for the original edit I did not know that being born with golden eyes were such a sign. From reading WotA, I did not get this impression (though I did know druids gained golden eyes). This is why statements must be sourced - you slipped in the edit but the edit comment was for something else. How can I know where the info came from? Anyway, sorry for the confusion, and I hope you learnt something from this too :) Check your spelling, and source please!  Kirkburn talk contr 17:29, 30 January 2007 (EST)
Still don't get it. My main point is that the encyclpedia is ultimate source of warcraft info because sometimes the novels, etc have contradictory info. for eg: First all five Old Gods were imprisoned, then four and then three. Ultimately, the encyclopedia decides whats right. And btw if you did not know what you were editing then you should not have edited it. You could have sent me a message like Ragestorm does about edits; not removed it. What's you've written now isn't that different from what was previously written anyway.--Noman953 22:00, 1 Febuary 2007

Since I've been invoked, albiet indirectly, I'll throw my two cents in. Noman, Kirkburn's issue is that you did not cite your sources in the article and,more importantly, that your wording was unclear- I knew what you were talking about, and I was still puzzled. Kirkburn, a discussion or a Bookkeeper intervention is how this should have been handled. Addendum: the encyclopedia does get the final word on lore issues (which is where Noman's wording was wrong, as eye color means the same for both genders), that's Bookkeeper policy.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:54, 31 January 2007 (EST)

Thanks for the note Ragestorm. Noman, I do get it. If I do not know certain information, and what was written looked wrong to me ... well I'm sorry, but it impossible for me to know that which I don't know! If you had mentioned it was from the encyclopedia, I would have gone looking there first and reworded it accordingly. Think about how contradictory it is to say "if you did not know what you were editing then you should not have edited it". That would make it impossible to deal with any such edit. Someone could say Illidan was actually an ice-cream salesman before the events of WotA, yet with that reasoning, I couldn't do anything about it - because 1) it had no source, and 2) I didn't 'know' it.
I have no problem with the encyclopedia, sheesh. Don't know why you think I have some beef with it :/ Obviously what I've written now is an improved version of what you wrote because I can now read the source and write a suitable statement from that. Whereas I couldn't before. Ragestorm, I didn't see a reason to get the bookkeepers in involved because it looked like a simple change, but now it's blown up into a full-blown questioning of my abilities :P People make mistakes, Noman, both of us.
In any case, in WotA was there any suggestion Illidan had an aptitude for druidism? I have vague recollections of such, but he was just too impatient?  Kirkburn talk contr 07:13, 1 February 2007 (EST)
Pretty much, he was offered, he had started to learn, but was far too impatient and prefered the immediate and easily controlled results from the arcane arts. --Zealtalkcontrweb 11:42, 1 February 2007 (EST)
Ah yes, thought as much. Thanks :)  Kirkburn talk contr 12:16, 1 February 2007 (EST)

There was no hint of the inherent ability/eye color connection until the release of the encyclopedia. It's implied that the mindset (respect, patience, good intentions) for druidism is far more important than the inherent ability- Illidan's eyes got him nowhere, while Malfurion became the greatest of them all. Illidan would have been Furion's druidic superior had he cared about the art itself, rather than as a means to an end.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:50, 1 February 2007 (EST)

Template authorship Edit

I just wanted to ask your opinion on template authorship. You've probably seen the post by now. Zeal's argument that templates have no need for neutrality and possibly benefit from a author's list is valid, but at the same time I feel it's inappropriate to have an author explicit on any page but the talk and history pages, especially when anyone could edit the documentation or rework the template. Any thoughts? // Montagg (talk · contr) 09:33, 31 January 2007 (EST)

I'd just like to bring one side note more to the attention of people in power to do stuff. Get a template team sorted out, end of issue :P --Zealtalkcontrweb 12:38, 31 January 2007 (EST)
I'm planning on doing the Community Teams stuff this weekend.  Kirkburn talk contr 07:45, 2 February 2007 (EST)

A more musical atmosphere Edit

I propose a policy that all deletions must include in their deletion notes a musical interlude. // Montagg (talk · contr) 20:25, 1 February 2007 (EST)

And I'd like to propose the policy of a written exam to qualify for a WoWWiki account, so that I don't have to bring grammer up to high school level but we can all dream, Montag, we can all dream. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 22:10, 1 February 2007 (EST)

Ahem, Ragestorm, before you tell people how to spell proper, learn to spell grammar! no offense meant or anything >< --Jammidodger 18:28, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

That's a whole culture you're lamenting, dude. ;-) // Montagg (talk · contr) 22:36, 1 February 2007 (EST)
There's a word for people like that. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:18, 1 February 2007 (EST)
But I woz like yeah but no but yeah.
You know I can edit the registering and login pages, no? :P BEWARE: If you can't spell proper, Ragestorm will bring an iron rod to your house. Smiley  Kirkburn talk contr 07:44, 2 February 2007 (EST)


help page on sigs Edit

Cant directly find the original usertalkpage where it was listed, but would you be interested in starting a help page on how to make the template sigs? it may be useful.  - CJ talk / cont  08:15, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Good idea. I'll do it later!  Kirkburn talk contr 11:16, 2 February 2007 (EST)
Might want to include a section on Sig Trends and how boxes are so last month. // Montagg (talk · contr) 21:45, 2 February 2007 (EST)
Hehe, you're soo delusional =)  Kirkburn talk contr 10:27, 3 February 2007 (EST)
I swear I didn't steal any bits of your sig at all *cough* --ρςұκε®7 talkcontr 02:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Moonglade Edit

Regarding the recent edit to the entry in Zones/Tables:Kalimdor about Moonglade, I haven't actually advanced far enough to go there so I don't know from experience what's accurate. Before I edited it there was only a '5' in that field, so I checked another website which identified it as a 50-55 area, which is what I put there. I think the level ranges on most of the others (at least the ones I have experience with) are how they are identified from "official" sources and are not necessarily what would be reasonable from a gameplay standpoint. For example, Stonetalon Mountains is listed as 15-27, but the only reasonable way in from the Alliance side (the first time) is via the Talondeep Path and Windshear Crag, and would be out-of-level risky if you're below about lvl 18, and one quest I had in the Charred Vale was quite a challenge even as a lvl 28. At any rate, there should probably be something in that column for Moonglade - if you have better information than mine, then by all means use it. --Mwalimu 22:32, 11 February 2007 (EST)

It's not actually any level, since it's accessible by druids for pretty much every level, and there's no important quests or mobs to kill. It's essentially empty.  Kirkburn talk contr 22:38, 11 February 2007 (EST)

Did you know ... Edit

This is the story of a thought process...

  • Did you know that some horde flightmasters don't attack alliance players on sight?
    • Some flightmasters are traitors to the horde.
      • Flightmasters are traitors to the horde.
        • Some flight masters are goblins.
          • Goblins are at war with the horde.
            • Orcs are also green.
              • Orcs are having a civil war!
                • Blood elves joined the horde.
                  • Blood elves are causing a civil war!
                    • Blood elves are evil.

Now if that doesn't prove it, what does? If you are the owner of the above thought process, please phone the front desk and ask about acerbic english wit. Thank you.  Kirkburn talk contr 04:17, 12 February 2007 (EST)

*you hear ringing in the background*
Hello, is this the front desk? I'm calling to ask about acerbic English wit. Smiley Sky 05:01, 12 February 2007 (EST)

Horde/Naaru Edit

So sayeth the Lord of the Lore (as you titled me, in no way infringing on the use of that title by Metzen)

Hopefully the final word: Of the reasons given, only the M'uru point can be accepted as a reason for the naaru to dislike the Horde. Given that no viable in-game evidence has been put forward, and only a single viable lore reason given, this "theory" shall not be posted on any articles even loosely classified as lore- any attempt to do so shall be reverted with the scope of my powers as Head Bookkeeper. Repeat violation, in the unlikely event of occuring, shall be classed as vandalism and treated as such.
In the terms of adding this theory to the lore articles, this discussion is over. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:06, 12 February 2007 (EST)
Kirkburn, Ragestorm and Angry Ogre, sorry for having entered your discussion, I'd just like to be sure : Ragestorm, can you just put this "theory" you're talking about in a nutshell for me ?--K ) (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2007 (EST)
That the naaru are anti-Horde, either secretly or openly. // Montagg (talk · contr) 18:42, 21 February 2007 (EST)

ScottishEdit

Works for me. :) And perhaps ... "Laird" of the Lore?  Kirkburn talk contr 00:27, 13 February 2007 (EST)
Do I come across as Scottish to you? Only titles in our neck of the woods that I know of are Duchess and Baronet.
Still, Laird is better, on the off-chance Metzen pays us a visit.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 08:45, 13 February 2007 (EST)

New BC template Edit

In addition to doing something wierd to Man'ari Eredar (a placement issue, it think), the content is not exclusive to the Burning Crusade. Man'ari eredar appear in WotA, RotH, RoC and TFT, dreanei in RotH, and Blood elves in TFT. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:22, 13 February 2007 (EST)

Good point. Just asked around for a good response for this (my mind, I'm losing it) - the article should be using {{bc-section}} on BC related sections of it, not T:Bc. Plus T:Bc should be the first word on any page using it from now on.  Kirkburn talk contr 23:32, 13 February 2007 (EST)
Confirmed and filed, boss-bot. You should get some form of recuperation, considering what time it is over there. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:36, 13 February 2007 (EST)


Gsdkp links Edit

Hi... about the links to gsdkp.com not working, i was using the same template I put for the guilds registered to the website. I will use a different page setup for showing the items to everyone from remote servers. Sorry about the links problem, will fix that asap. --Gsdkp 08:17, 17 February 2007 (EST)

Thanks!  Kirkburn talk contr 23:57, 17 February 2007 (EST)

Image deletions Edit

Just in case anyone is wondering - I am deleting old, bad, ugly, corrupt etc images that aren't in use atm. Anything that's likely imagelinked or for future use is being left well alone :)  Kirkburn talk contr 18:10, 6 March 2007 (EST)

That is a lot of pictures.--Sky 18:26, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Yes, yes it is. Smiley. Got about another 500 to check, shouldn't take tooooo long!  Kirkburn talk contr 18:27, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Sig update Edit

Because I like to. Also, this is how to do it without messing up the wiki for hours ... Kirkburn talk contr 23:04, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Teh ownage Edit

I don't know what to say, frankly. Just thought I'd let an admin figure it out. ;P--Sky 18:00, 7 March 2007 (EST)

I've noticed it. Lets just say I'm seeing how it goes ... Kirkburn talk contr 18:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Maybe a merge to Leetspeak? I'll throw up a merge proposal, maybe do it myself... :)--Sky 18:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)
I think it'd be more appropriate to merge this with World of Warcraft Terminology. However, in its current form, it definitely needs some touching up to reach our standards for the global namespace. // Montagg (talk · contr) 18:29, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Frankly, while the name is amusing, it needs some cleanup too. ;P.--Sky 18:33, 7 March 2007 (EST)
It's useless. I mean, "Ally Faggit - Paladin"? "Shammy - Shaman"? Needs major cleanup or deletion IMO. --Amro 06:21, 8 March 2007 (EST)
I just took the game terms section, split it up and put the relevant terms on the talk pages for the two World of Warcraft Terminology articles for community review. Since the useful information should be preserved that way, I've also put a delete tag on Teh ownage. I think we can safely delete the page given enough votes. // Montagg (talk · contr) 22:57, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

WoWWiki:Manual of Style Edit

Maybe have a redirect from WW:MOS?--Sky 18:58, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Done! :) Kirkburn talk contr 19:09, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Guild Boilerplate update... Edit

I'd like some comments on my Boilerplate:Guild rework here: User:Watchout/Sandbox2. And since you're my hero... er I mean an admin... Maybe if you like it (or not) and happen to talk to other admins or experienced wiki users you could bring it up and then they maybe leave me a comment too! :-)

Anyway the current boilerplate is just confusing to newcomers, and it's a quite big change, so I'd like to have admins on my side :-P -watchout 05:23, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Bureaucrat Edit

I'm now a bureaucrat so people can request group permissions - bots mainly. Kirkburn talk contr 14:29, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki