Wikia

WoWWiki

Talk:Ragestorm/Archive8

102,213pages on
this wiki

Back to page | < User talk:Ragestorm

The Tyrande and Rouge Bokkeeper issue Edit

If I angered you I must apologize, for it was not my intention to do so. After rewriting practically the entire Shandris article (as you may have noticed) I took a look at the Tyrande article, and to my great despair found that the War of the Ancients section there depicted not the events in Knaak's novels, but the earlier lore, before the retcon. The situation is not Storyline and Alternative storyline (Knaak's), but True storyline (Knaak's) and storyline that's been retconned away. Knaak's version is the correct one, so upon seeing the other depiction in an article as important as Tyrande's, and recalling a notion on the bookkeepers page saying they regarded Knaak's storyline as correct, I assumed the bookkeepers had just missed rewriting that section. Therefore, I did the most resonable thing I could think of; Began correcting it myself. I was going to write a whole new version of that particular section in the Tyrande-article, but hadn't time at the moment, so I left a note saying I would do so within shortly. I had no idea that Tyrande was on your "watch", nor that there were "official channels" to joining the bookkeepers. The whole "rogue bookkeeper"-thing was meant as a joke, and a message that I am continously adding lore-related material to WoWWiki, and would like to join the bookkeeper-order, but did not know how to do so. Judging by your repy, I've made a buffoon out of myself, and would like to apologize humbly for doing so. -- User:NerdKnight Xavier 12:35, 11 February, 2007 (EST)

Your POV need a bit of work, but we'll let bygones be bygones. You must exusce me- given the sort of rif-raff I must usually put in their place, I take such alterations seriously. I don't think your more recent edits have been much trouble...
As for the Bookkeepers, most of the community management is being rehashed, so I'll let you know when we're finished. Who knows? There are times when everybody needs a good rogue...--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 09:06, 11 February 2007 (EST)

On my travels... Edit

Standing on Theramore docks I espied:

Privateer Groy yells: Where in the Outlands are those shipments? For days they keep me waiting!

Heh ;) Now, I didn't say it directly I hasten to add...  Kirkburn talk contr 19:19, 11 February 2007 (EST)

LAWLBaggins

PLEASE HELP ME!!!!!!!! Edit

Can you help me please? If you have War of the Ancients trilogy (vol. 2 and 3), Sunwell manga (vol. 2 (and vol. 1, but it's not so required)) and Rise of the Horde novel PLEASE send them to me by E-mail (in computer text version of course=) ). I can't buy these books in my country, send me some of them that you have. You'll help me A LOT!!! My E-mail: is70@rambler.ru Mardook

I do not have the capability to help you, I'm afraid. I have the book versions, and I don't have the time to retype or scan everything. Sorry.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:00, 13 February 2007 (EST)

Questions Edit

Can you answer my questions in Old Gods discussion page? Mardook

elemental spirits languageEdit

When you release some elemental spirits called, "living fire" in Nagrand they speak in Kalimag, saying "Reth Reth Reth", whatever that means. Yes, I don't know how they physically say "Reth Reth Reth", I have no idea if they have same mode of communication with a mouth or something else... All I know is that's what they say in the game :p...Baggins 23:32, 13 February 2007 (EST)

There is always the possibility with spiritual beings that you are hearing something different from what they are saying, or they are causing you to hear something even thought they didn't speak it audibly. Mainly, there's always the possibility that speech is not tied to some physical limitation. // Montagg (talk · contr) 23:49, 13 February 2007 (EST)

Images, you say.... Edit

Well, why are these pics allowed?

with others...

--  Shandris  talk / contribs 18:23, 17 February 2007 (EST) 15:36, 17 February 2007 (EST)

Largely, because, as I said, I'm not particularly qualified to talke about datamining (I shouldn't have mentioned it). The issue is more to the fact that the images you removed are better than the ones you replaced them with- that Vashj, particularly, was especially unpleasant. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:54, 17 February 2007 (EST)
Ladyvash
In what way was it unpleasant? --  Shandris  talk / contribs 18:23, 17 February 2007 (EST)
Unspeakably bland background, unflattering pose, and the image doesn't convey anything that the image you removed lacks. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 22:59, 17 February 2007 (EST)

Horde controversyEdit

Ragestorm I think you should see the list of poeple who feel the horde is being ruined in BC Angry ogre 21:01, 21 February 2007 (EST)

I will, as soon as someone shows me. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:02, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Heres the list

1.Well first of all theres you. You admited it in a discussion on talk horde.

2.Theres also Zexx who admitted it in the blood elf discussion

3.Ring of fire in the horde analysis section

4.Drek'thar

5.I think Odalwa also said he was displeased with the horde's current lore

I think thats enough people to warrant a controversy section Angry ogre 21:03, 21 February 2007 (EST)

I haven't yet played TBC, so I cannot comment on the in-game situation. From the comments of everybody I know (apart from yourself) the "AllianceGood/HordeEvil" doesn't come out as much as Marketing implies. My opposition comes largly from the "evil/sexy" image of the Blood elves. You should note that I am also vehemently opposed to the Night elves being in the Alliance.
Though I'm not opposed to the idea by any means, I'm sorry to admit that I have doubts about you writing such a section. The "evidence" you've discussed (ie, the Naaru) is not valid. If you'd like to prepare something to show me what you have in mind, then we'll see. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:12, 21 February 2007 (EST)

The section won't be on naaru horde relations its going to be out the view that Horde has gotten the wrong image in Warcraft,the alliance is now portrayed as saintly, and is commonly represented as the evil side especially in BC. Personally I blame a lot of this problem on Blizzard's refusal to make more then two factions. Angry ogre 21:20, 21 February 2007 (EST)

And that's exactly the source of my misgivings. Making such a section is already difficult enough without your refusal to believe that everyone at Blizzard is complicit in this (although I agree that I can't think of a good defense for the two-faction only rule). I don't go far enough to claim that the Alliance's general image is saintly (this image applies only to the dreanei, if one doesn't look too closely at those disturbing eyes). The only evidence I've seen of this "new image" is in promotional artwork for TBC, which, again, usually only applies to Blood elves. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:16, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Well theres the fact that the blood knight lore blatantly and completly vilifies the horde. Even going so far as to say Thrall let blood elves because they had blood knights which is probably one of the biggest plotholes in Azeroth. They are seen using slavery Even Metzen doesn't seem to like the blood elves yet he adores the draenei. Frankly I'm getting awfully tired of the horde having to take in the trash the alliance threw out. Blizzard currently seems to have this idiotic theory that if it doesn't belong in the alliance,it belongs in the horde. I'm betting sooner they'll put pitlords with some incredibly lame explaniation that makes no sense. And yes the Draenei are completle saints thats why they are completly lame they lack dimension. They remind me of mary sues, chosen by gods,Infalliable,have fancy techonology,Main bad guy obessed with them,related to the main badguy,have inate powers over the light,physically flawless. You see no bad draenei or Draenei or do mean things. They're more two dimensional and less interesting then Filson the rat. Angry ogre 01:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Do you even realize that you've just murdered your argument? I'm not going to bother correcting your lore at this point, as we both know I'm not going to agree with you, and you're not going to agree with me. You are also blaming Blizzard as a whole for a few bad choices- as you said, Metzen appears to disagree with the Blood elves, yet he loves the draenei. This could be due to the fact that he invented everything about the draenei himself, and feels a creator's empathy for his children. You seem to see Blizzard as a single entity, a la the Zerg. Blizzard isn't a group of people with one mind, they're a company of people with various opinions and ideas, and World of Warcraft is about earning subscribers and making money, hence the ideas that earn subscribers, and therefore money, are the ones implimented over the opposition of the lore and/or design departments.
You've obviously learned nothing from your previous arguments. Write the section you so desire, but don't be surprised if it's removed. At the very least, I can guarantee it will be mercilessly edited (this is a wiki, after all). And a word of advice: flaming Blizzard with no point is a ticket to a "cease and desist" order. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 09:09, 22 February 2007 (EST)
Lamentable. Fans get so much obsessed with a game that they even want to change the lore and criticize the story written by the ones who have provided the basis for these fans' malevolent and polemical speculations and explanations. Endless controversies and rows. Total forgetting of the initial spirit. People that think they know what is good or not for the lore and the game. Metzen can love any people he wants. If the Horde isn't as appealing as before for you, love it or leave it.--K ) (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2007 (EST)

True Metzen has the right to change the lore to whatever he pleases. But what your forgetting is that Metzen could easily have changed the blood knight lore(if he didn't invent it himself) to something more acceptable, but he didn't. I could stand the Draenei,the forsaken and even the blood elves. But the blood knights are the straw that broke the camels back. Metzen could easily changed the naaru explaniation to Blood elf zealots like the ones in the scarlet crusade or a different class that just functions like a paladin(for example a special kind of spell breaker),instead Blizzard chose the explanation that completly vilifies the horde. Angry ogre 16:51, 22 February 2007 (EST)

The explanation actually works in terms of explaning the Blood Knights; what doesn't work is that Thrall accepted them in spite of knowing the source. That's the only real issue, and I can't think of a way to explain it. This doesn't completely vilify the Horde, it merely makes no sense. One thing that could explain it is that WoW is different from WarCraft- if this were a normal Blizzard game, anything except an MMO, then the plot elements involved (mystery, betrayal, espionage and morality) would iron themselves out as the game progressed. In the MMO story environment, it doesn't work.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:15, 22 February 2007 (EST)

No thats the only plothole it creates. If any common thug with a captured Naaru can steal its powers why don't the forsaken use M'ruu to create their own Blood knights,why not the Burning legion or the scourge. And yes having the horde torture a being of pure good to steal its powers does completly vilify the horde. They might as well have said the horde hates good and everything it stands for. The person who wrote the blood elf paladin lore should be cleaning toilets for two cents an hour not creating crappy lore at Blizzard. Angry ogre 18:29, 23 February 2007 (EST)

As usual you're blowing things out of proportion. Does the M'uru sapping vilify the Horde? Yes. Completely vilifies the Horde as a whole? Not quite. As I've tried to explain, this is the sort of plot element which, in a Warcraft book, Strategy game, or standard RPG, would work, but which is unsatisfactory in an MMO, opened ended game. And just because a piece of lore doesn't work, doesn't mean that the person who thought of it is a total moron. Your inability to see shades of grey appears to be a deeper personality flaw.
You should also realize by now that this is not a forum. We are trying to present information to our readers, not editorialize on that information. Whatever we think of the lore has no place in our articles. We've only added controversy sections under heavy complaint (And I can't help but notice that you are the only one whose opinion remains so vehement.
As to the original issue, you have not yet shown enough suitable material to warrent the addition of a controversy section into the Horde aricle.-_Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:04, 23 February 2007 (EST)

I disagree. Let say someone who had never read about Thrall and Cairne read this. They would either assume they were spineless yesmen or Corrupt and Evil leaders. Its one thing to say Thrall and Cairne puts up with blood knights,but its even worse to say they let the blood elves in because of blood knights. I can just imagine the Author of the blood knight lore, Response to the complaints. "LoL I forgot Thrall wasn't Evil" Angry ogre 17:02, 25 February 2007 (EST)

It is a fact of life that what you see on the surface is not always the same as what is truly beneath. You have moved onto arguing against the way the lore was presented rather than against the lore itself.  Kirkburn talk contr 18:26, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Its a fact that blood knights are evil,Blizzard calls them evil,Metzen hinted that they were evil,the way they got their powers was evil. There is no real way to defend this piece of lore. Angry ogre 19:34, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Don't misunderstand me, I was just responding to your point that people new to the lore might not get the right idea about the truth. In all aspects of life this applies - for 'the truth' to be plainly obvious, it would require very one-dimensional (and unrealistic) characters. I think we can all agree that we don't want that.  Kirkburn talk contr 19:42, 25 February 2007 (EST)
You two can duke this one out- As it's Oscar night, I'll be absent. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:20, 25 February 2007 (EST)

I sort of agree with what Ogre is saying. I believe that the Blood Elves evil side does somewhat contradict the Horde's honorable ideals and TBH its quite obvious that they had to come up with some reason to allow paladins into the horde as they already had Draenei shamans! However, at the end of the day the role of the lore side of this website is to report the lore as it stands. We have no control over the lore of the game because we are not blizzard employee's. If you want to pick holes in blizz's lore to the point of ripping the whole thing apart then perhaps you should address your concerns to Bliz themself or just quit the game and try and find something without contradictions in the lore at some point (good luck)? Moaning on Rage's talk page isnt going to do much about it now is it! --Diggory 08:44, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Exactly. To get back to Ogre's proposal: while there is ample evidence for the existence of Blood elf controversy, there is not enough viable non-Blood elf evidence to warrent the induction of such a section for the Horde. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if the Blood Knight plot was done as part of WarCraft IV, or some sort of WarCraft CRPG, anything with a campaign, no one wuld be complaining. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 09:04, 26 February 2007 (EST)
TBH regardless of a few plotholes, Blizz must be doing something right to create the worlds most popular MMORPG, if not the worlds most popular game full stop. However they cant please everyone. --Diggory 04:30, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Few plot holes HA! its a bunch of gigantic plotholes which blizzard will never answer. They said they'd explain why blood elves were in the horde,they didn't and instead created a huge plothole with the blood knights. Anyway i say we should make a controversy section for the horde because if the bigger deal we make of this,the less likely Blizzard will create another horrible horde race like the blood elves or forsaken. Personally I'd like it if the alliance was dumped with a crud race,least then we'd be even. Angry ogre 20:02, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Let's see: chances that people agree with you on at least one level: high. Chances that many people share your exact opinion: low. Chances that Blizzard will check this site before they undertake their next lore descision: NONE. WoWWiki isn't Blizzard's favorite fansite under the best of circumstances, and I highly doubt that they'll appreciate us telling them how we think they should do their jobs.
And, even If I authorized such a section, what on the gods' green/brown/blue earth makes you think I'd let you flame Blizzard in it? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:45, 28 February 2007 (EST)

The draenei and blood elf controversy pages which I greatly expanded on,don't insult Blizzard at all. Putting a controversy section on the horde would get people thinking,people are always looking on Wowwiki for Warcraft lore. Like I said Blizzard is too lazy to ever change anything,but they will respond if the controversys big enough, Angry ogre 17:56, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Ogre, you appear to be extremly set in your ways and unable to see other points of view. I believe its important as a lore lover to be able to look at things from other peoples points of view however you simply repeating yourself and flaming is not earning you any credit. To be honest I couldnt give a toss about your opinion now as your too immature to have one. Please go play another game and pick holes in that insted of bothering WoWwiki with your biased comments.--Diggory 03:59, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I would like to add and i'm not sure where i read this and i will work to find out if it's an official blizzard comment or not but i remember reading somewhere that Thrall saw the strategic importance of having the Blood Knights in the horde but that doesn't mean that he has to agree with how they became Blood Knights.--ShadowsMalek 12:57, 1 March 2007 (CST)

Well this was a short trip but i have found the evidence i need to support my little comment on the WoW website there is in the story section a part called shamans and paladins in there is the explanation as to what was probablly the main reason for the BE entrance into the horde Although Warchief Thrall and High Chieftain Cairne Bloodhoof openly opposed the blood elves' methods, they recognized the Blood Knights' strategic value. Indeed, it is likely that the group figured heavily in the Horde's ultimate decision to offer membership to the blood elves. As stated on the world of warcraft website. As stated here is this tidbit of information it openly says that both Thrall and Cairne openly opposes the BE's methods but the reconized the the importance of having the Blood knights. If i did this wrong please feel free to to let me know as i'm an openminded person when it comes to critisism.--ShadowsMalek 13:10, 1 March 2007 (CST)

By your twisted logic, Thrall should let in Death knights,necromancers or even let in pitlords because the bloodhaze made them more powerfull. Stop denying, it this makes absolutely no sense. Angry ogre 17:56, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Ffs Angry Ogre, no one is denying it was a stupid reason, but it's not our logic, it's Blizzards and no amount of your constant bitching and moaning about it is going to change anything. Stop bugging Ragestorm with these useless, futile and biased complaints, i'm sure he's got better things to do with his time than to keep telling you the same thing over and over. --Zealtalkcontrweb 18:03, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Reversion of Rexxar on 16:20, 24 February 2007 Edit

Would you care to explain why you reverted the page Rexxar from the minor edit I made? That image I posted of Rexxar as seen in Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne(seen here) is much better than the one the page was originally using. I didn't see anyone removing the image I added to Thrall's page... Do you just not like Rexxar or something? What I did was hardly vandalism and no reason was given for the change. As such, I strongly disagree with your choice, but instead of being a jerk and un-reverting it, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Now...please explain yourself. ~ Doc Lithius (U)(T)(C) 23:55, 28 February 2007 (EST)

A tad strong in your writing there matey. Calm down. --Diggory 04:02, 1 March 2007 (EST)
If I recall correctly, you removed an image which showed both his character model (from an adequate angle) and his portrait in favor of a closeup of his model. I felt this was inadequate because the portrait of the character shows more of the character than zooming in on the model. The one you posted on Thrall's page was not reverted because it did not take the place of a relevant image, and was simply added in an appropriate location.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 08:11, 1 March 2007 (EST)
The lesson here is, always remember to add edit summaries ;) --Zealtalkcontrweb 14:46, 1 March 2007 (EST)
I both appreciate and understand your explaination. Thank you for taking the time to explain your actions. ~ Doc Lithius (U)(T)(C) 16:04, 1 March 2007 (EST)
My role in this was probably a bit of laziness. It's simpler for me to use my revert powers than to physically change the text, and it displays the "reverted edits by..." without prompting for summary.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 19:43, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Elf KidnappingEdit

On the rumored races page you mentioned that it had to be high elves the nerubians were kidnapping because night elves were on kalimdor, I should say that the nerubians live in northrend, which means they were heading to an entirly diffrent continent for their "specimens", so wouldn't it be possible that they could have been going to Kalimdor and kidnapping night elves? (Oh, and according to some information I found their were supposedly some primitive humans living in northrend, so the question "where did nerubians get their human specimens?" seems a preety easy question to me.) Hordesupporter 13:59, 1 March 2007 (EST)

As I understood it, the kidnapped elves would have been in Northrend of reasons somewhat similar to whyever there were any humans or dwarves in Northrend. I've no idea where the elf kidnapping is first mentioned, though as no night elves would have left Kalimdor, and few high elves would leave Quel'Thalas, let alone Lordaeron. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:24, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I'm not sure where the first place Bliizard officaly mentioned it either, but it appears to be sticking to the Nerubian page, oh, and I should mention, I want nerubains in the horde with every fiber of my being, so you can expect me to be somewhat biased about it, I just hope noone compares me to angry ogre, the guy is entitled to his own opinions, but i'd appreciate it if his "facts" were comprised of more then just his own opinions. Hordesupporter 04:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

You've not yet crossed the line, I assure you. You list your facts (which are actual lore facts and not game mechanic facts), and are ready to accept the flaws in your arguments. I don't think the Nerubians are plausible due to the fact that they are quadrupeds (or hexapeds, depending on which animation you look at), their population would be too low to support a player population, and they're rather xenophobic. However, it will be years before we find out. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 10:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think the games have yet actually said anything about how many living nerubains are left, also note that every single troll that the players play as, came from the tiny echo isles, they have had a few years to repopulate somewhat, but could not have possibley have made enough babies to make the player population, granted, I wonder if blizzard was trying to tell us something with the troll females emote about the fact they can mate over 40 times in one night. One more thing, although you are a lorekeeper, and thus, what you say about lore is most likly trustworthy... can you give me a link or a quote that states the nerubians are xenophobic? It's rather amazing I like the nerubians so much, considering I suffer from extreme arachnophobia, lol. If they joined the alliance i'd change server to play as them. Hordesupporter 23:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Nerubian xenophobia is touched on in Manual of Monsters, and Lands of Mystery. It may be covered in upcoming dark factions as well. You might also check the WC3 manual for more info as well on nerubian culture. As for size of echo isles, its small due to world scale issues. Infact its farther out to see in WC3, and could only be reached by zepplin or boat, the islands were larger too.Baggins 23:51, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

9 MonthsEdit

Hi Ragestorm Nine months have passed... Now may I become a bookkeeper? N'Nanz 00:12, 13 March 2007 (Rome)

We are not currently accepting any new members due to the restructuring of the community teams. You have been placed on the short-list for when applicans are reopened. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Tirisfal Grove Edit

Put out a theory on Talk:Tirisfal_Grove that I would like some other peoples thoughts on, even if its just to tell me its bollocks :P cheers m8y - --Diggory 05:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)


I think I saw you in AV the other day Oo - Hawkspur

???--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 19:06, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Danath Trollbane Edit

I'm going to let you handle what went into the NPC-box (by none other than Theron the Just). Have fun (he asked the question of where the policy came from, which should be a good chance to explain why reverted...).--Sky (t · c · w) 03:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I have no idea whether it's fan art (and I can't tell from the source), so I have reverted back and added it with an appropriate tag. The discussion should continue on User talk:Theron the Just. Kirkburn talk contr 08:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Bot Stuff Edit

Hello Ragestorm. I wasn't sure if you would go back to my talk page but the problem was with the new template {{Wwclub}}. I have rectified this. I have been watching all of the updates but hadn't changed the template. Thank you for letting me know. KitanBot 12:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

No worries. I just wanted to be sure you were aware. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 16:14, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Apology Edit

I'm sorry, but i've really gotten sick over the whole thing, and although it has slowed, angry's constant complaints haven't stopped completly, I want to get over the whole thing but as long as ogre keeps doing this I can't get oer it. Hordesupporter 20:46, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Nevertheless, I don't think my actions are harrassment, I consider you thinking that it even borders harrassment is an insult, I try my best to be civil. Hordesupporter 21:10, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Ogre's a bit of a pain, but for now i'm just gonna ignore what he says, and if he edits an article that even remotely gives a "Horde and/or Blood Elves are evil" impression it shall get reverted, either by me or someone else, I have both Horde, Blood Elf, and Blood Knight on my watchlist, the three most likly pages he would try to edit with POV comments. Hordesupporter 00:36, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

That's probably your best bet; in future, keep discussions on one usertalk, hmm? ;-) it makes it simpler.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 08:39, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Question Edit

What exactly did you mean by what you said in the talk page for fandral? Did you mean you would have banned me if I had expressed my thoughts in the article itself, as compared to the talk page? Hordesupporter 17:31, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Since you expressed your view in the talk page, there's no problem at all; if you'd have edited the article to that effect... well, I would probably have sternly repremanded you and warned you that such behavior would not be tolerated, and taken action if you'd again tried to insert such a view into the article. This is the practice for such edits, as POV edits are considered acts of vandalism. The point I was trying to get across is that you should outright say something and not make it sound stupid. I see the menaing was lost without a typed smiley. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:39, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not too fond of Fandral, mainly because Malfurion is one of the only 3 alliance characters I actually like. (The others being Tyrande and Jaina) It is because of Malfurion that I can stand having a ally character, a night elf druid. Hordesupporter 18:06, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Carefully rearrange the syllables of my username to discover my favorite character. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 19:30, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
He should lern2anagram. Smiley. Wait... which one? :O--Sky (t · c · w) 19:40, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Horde#Evil Edit

Weren't you supposed to be archiving this discussion? I had to go through a lot of edit histories to find who linked to an empty article... would have saved a lot of time if you'd have signed it. There is someone who is now confused as to where that discussion has gone, and who was supposed to be moving it... <Kiltek> blah / spam 09:59, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Your addition to Alexstraza section in Warcraft AdventuresEdit

Alexstrasza is easily the most powerful individual on Azeroth. She's a huge red dragon who could just as easily crush an army as cunningly manipulate its leaders to her own ends. She has a brilliant intellect and delights in toying with the lesser creatures who cross her path. This version of Alexstrasza is the polar opposite of the canonical version.

I mostly agree with you, if we look at that sentence from a completely negative POV. But let's take it piece by piece, and see if it can be interpreted differently, from a postive pov.

1.Easily one of the most powerful individuals on Azeroth?

True.

2. Could easily crush an army?

True.

3. Cunningly manipulate its leaders to her own ends.

Doesn't sound like the Alexstraza we know, if looked at from a negative POV.

...however if "manipulation" means it is for beneficent reasons, to promote life and good will. We do know that some of her kind have infiltrated positions of power, impersonating humans or elves, in order to monitor and help pass laws, mold decisions, for the good of all. Krasus comes to mind. Its a kind of "manipulation", but of a benevolent sort.

Its unclear if Alexstrasza has ever done this herself, although we do know she has taken form of animals at times in order to observe others.

4.Brilliant Intellect.

True.

5.Delights in toying with creatures who cross her path.

True from a certain point of view. According to RPG, when people try to attack her, she fights them a bit, lets them see her powers. She makes sure they know who she is. However she is putting on a show really, and ultimately she gives them a chance to flee, rather than choosing kill them. If they continue to persist, well she has a right to defend herself.

Ultimately we won't know what kind of characterization she was going to have in the game. If she was playing with Thrall, showing him her powers, with chance to flee in the end, or "testing" him. But there are certainly different ways to view the way that comment is worded. We do know however, that apparently almost every character in game, that Thrall was to encounter during his puzzle solving, was supposed to have a sense of humor of some kind, to fit the humor the game was trying to portray. So she was probably not intended to be "dark and malicious character", along the sorts of Blackmoore. You have to remember Metzen was involved with the game as well. I doubt he would have had her outside mold of what she said to be in Warcraft II, not unless she was still being controlled by the Demonsoul or something...Baggins 13:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Ultimately we don't know what characterization she was going to have in the game. No, we don't. At the time the game was written, Knaak had not yet started DotD, and dragons were evil across the board. Alexstrasza didn't have a mold in Warcraft II; she is only ever mentioned in regards to the fact that Dragonmaw have captured her. The Demon Soul was net yet developed. Given the language in that sentence, looking at it from a postive POV is largely a hindsight activity. This game was fist planned years before the novels. What's wrong with suggesting that the characterization was changed? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 10:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't know there were some remarks about Alex in warcraft II manual, and later in beyond the Dark Portal, that put her more towards a positive light.
Mainly that she was "great" and "majestic", in contrast to descriptions given for Deathwing, which was written in a more negative wording, "Terror".
Plus the way the Warcraft II manual worded things, it implied the reader was to have pity for her, and the way she was captured, tortured and in pain. None of it was ever in negative light. Even Beyond the Dark Portal's description of the alliance freeing her was written from a positive POV.
Oh and speaking of dragons, interestingly enough, a blue dragon was to appear in the game as well.Baggins 11:08, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Sylvanas imageEdit

One problem with the one you switched. Image quality (scan quality) on it is pretty poor, and looks slightly tweaked and blurred, in the racebox. Its also kind of squished. Can I suggest someone get a better scan of it?Baggins 20:22, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Certainly. I actually wanted to use the Ghostlands cover image, but I figured more people might disagree, so I figured the TGC as the next best thing. It's worked extremely well for Tyrande's infobox. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not a big fan of the CCG card artwork for sylvanas (color and background choice and composition isn't that good imo), and if I had to choose between it and Manga cover, I'd go with manga cover.
My personal favorite sylvanas imo has to be Metzen one, mainly because its most detail to her face, and shows alot of her physical beauty. However, sadly I can't say that any one image does Sylvanas justice... Unfortunately there are fanart portraying her, that look better than so-called "professional" images, and this is unfortunate. I really like this one, [1], but too bad its fanart.
As for Tyrande, I like the image, but again, someone needs to upload a higher quality scan :p, the version there now is very blurry, and her face is very hard to make out...It looks unproffesional in the image box in current form, IMO. Best case scenario would be to track down the original version of the artwork and see if it has more detail, without the cropping that exists in the card.
If it helps I'm looking at the images from two computers one with 1280x1024, and another in 1960x1280 resolution, and neither scale well. Baggins 00:01, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

An unanswer question Edit

Hi, Ragestorm. Do you know what's the name of that isle chain North of Lordaeron but South of Northrend? Of course, it's not present in any World of Warcraft map but if you look at a WarcraftIII map you'll be able to locate it easily. I inspect the web for any information but I can't find anything. I think these isle can be a very important add to a future expansion about Northrend... N'Nanz 5:08, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I have a vague idea of what you're talking about... as far as I know, it's never been referenced. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:35, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
I think the island chain in WC3 map[2] is the same one seen in the Azeroth map in WoW[3], the one just nw of lordaeron. The only difference you can't see Northrend on that wow map.Baggins 17:57, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
Very good, Baggins. These are exctly the isles I was speaking of. And the name? I remember I read somewhere that on them lied the first human settlement attacked by the Lich King while he was first experimenting his telepathic powers. N'Nanz 16:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Illidari Edit

Actually I used the box from the Scourge-article when inserting it into the Illidari-article. Since Scourge isn't a race either, wouldn't it be best to remove the box from that article aswell? -Odolwa 15:32, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Scourge is much closer to a race than the Illidari are; as a result, categories like "racial capital" and such still apply. We should develop a "factionbox" of exactly the same composition, but with statistics like "headquarters," "member races," etc. This box could then by applied to Illidari, Alliance, Horde, Burning Legion, Dragonflight and even Scourge. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

What Edit

Hello, I am new to Wowwiki. I hope I am responding correctly. You deleted an article I posted. The article was entirely factual and contained Warcraft News. Please explain why you deleted said post and threatened to ban me for participating in the Wowwiki universe. The quotes were taken directly from Blizzard.--Graime from Fenris 23:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, I am the one who removed your additon to the news page. For one, though I realize the page does say "Add anything interesting Warcraft and World of Warcraft related news here that you think people may wish to know!", if you actually take some time and look at the news items there, they all originated from the official WoW site. Second, your "news" was really just a complaint about being banned for no apparent reason (though from what you said, it does seem that you were given a reason, short though it was). It's not news, except to yourself. To others, it's another person complaining about being banned.
Also, don't forget to sign your comments. I did it for you here. --Maenos 00:17, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Don't bother too much with him, he was a troll. He was being a retard on IRC aswell. Anyways, blocked now. Thanks alot though --Adys 01:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
<shrug> I figured since his posts were just irrelevant and not actually vandal-worthy, I'd give him a warning. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 19:42, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

that WAS serious ..sort of Edit

Look i relized i weaved a bit too much comedy into my post for sargeras but it was the chat not the article and i think i did have a valid point. If the well powered main gate couldent manage to transport sargeras then it is highly unlikely a small pack of demonic holdouts could manage such a feat. (also if argus was netherpulled which seems quite likely as it is a major world for the leigon then there can be a plural use of outland.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorpx2 (talk · contr).

Draenei/Orc relations Edit

As of yet I haven't seen any Draenei hold ill will for an orc, under any and all cirumstances, could I safely assume the Draenei have been able to forgive the Orcs for their actions? Hordesupporter 00:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

<shrug> Lore-wise, the orc/draenei relationship is such that they would ally to stop the end of the world, but not otherwise. The draenei, though likely understanding that the orcs were corrupted, are still wary of them, while a number of orcs still alive have probably been indoctrinated from birth to hate the draenei, though they now know better. Hence, while they are uneasy enough not to enjoy each other's company, they will tolerate each other should the need arise. In short, forgiven, perhaps, but in no way forgotten. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:08, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Well... yes, but the Draenei in Shattarth don't seem to mind the fact their children play with orc children. Hordesupporter 18:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That's because Shattrath has been declared a sanctuary. The naaru have convinced everyone to put their problems aside for the greater good that is the fight against the Burning Legion. Any ill will that the Draenei have for orcs will have to be dealt with later. Pzychotix 18:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It's also possible (This is a speculative lore explanation, for explanatory purposes only) that there is a "children shall lead" mentality, and they are letting the children lose their aversion to orcs even without losing it themselves. Similar things happen in war-torn regions, where parents send their kids to places where they can interact with the chilldren of the other faction, hoping that they can find a way to peace, even if the parents can't. Pzychotix's explanation is simpler. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

When wandering around Garadar on my Undead, I found a building that had several Draenei in it, an Orc outside the building mentioned that the Draenei had attacked Mag'har Orcs without the Mag'har attacking the Draenei first, I feel it's out of character for the Draenei to be indiscrimintly attacking others, but there is apperantly much tnesion between the two races. Hordesupporter 02:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A draenei ... or a Kurenai (Broken)? Kirkburn talk contr 10:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I might be wrong on this but I think the orc, draenei, and human kids playing together are orphans. The last time I was at shattrath was at lvl 9, so I might be be wrong. (Mr.X8 03:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

Stormwind? I thought it was Lordaeron Edit

Is the orc article correct in having Stormwind as the first place attacked by the orcs and targeted by Medivh? I was under the impression that in fact it was the more northern areas of Lordearon like Dalaran, Arathi and Alterac and others that Medivh would be interested in.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorpx2 (talk · contr).

Ever played Warcraft one? --SWM2448 22:46, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
The orcs emerged from the Crossing in the Black Morass, now the Blasted Lands. They were used to destroy the nearest human kingdom, Stormwind. Where did you get the other impression? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:11, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I must have misread the lore at first now after seeing the original borders of SW it seems foolish of me I also assumed that sargeras/medivh would rather take lands more "power-wealth"(so to speak).Scorpx2 02:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)scorpx2

"Major Removal of Info" from Gnome Page Edit

You indicated that "major removal of information" was not appreciated. I did not intentionally do any such thing; there must have been a bug when saving due to article length issues. You'll note I am attempting only to edit for grammar and WoWWikification. Emilyzilch 17:58, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I figured there was such an explanation- all I noticed was that half the page's info was deleted after you edited, but since your previous edits have been constructive, I didn't think it was intentional. But please understand that we do have vandals- it has become our nature to assume the worst. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:12, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

what kind of stuff do vandals do? I dont understand why anyone would vandalize an informational website. I guess people are just weird that way sometimes. (Mr.X8 03:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

not sure what to do Edit

posted this on kirk's page but no idea where he is/when he is comming on. about GSDKP user, been throwing up his link on a ton of pages (spent 45 min removin them already this morning as he continues to do it) bunch of times in the middle of the page. His link on all the ones i remvoed contained nothing but the loot that was already on the Wiki, done quite nicely i might add. all of this in violation of the WW:EL think you could speak with him or something. I don't want to put him on the vandal list but i don't want to spend all this time cleaning up his mess either. IconSmall Draenei FemaleRESKAR(Contr) 14:55, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Not in my department, and not the sort of situation I usually deal with, so I'm not sure how much help I cna be; from what I've seen of his MO (if this is the same one as last time), he doesn't respond to his messages unless he's certain his links are being purged. I can leave him an admin-y message, but that's about it. You're right, though, he isn't really a vandal. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:12, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Regarding future expansion Edit

Hi Ragestorm! have you seen the map of Northrend? If it's not a fake it seems that the future Horde Race will be Tuskarr!!! (The tuskarr city Kaskala uses the icon as the other capital city of Azeroth) N'Nanz 13:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC) (EDT)

I should mention that the other option is that it is a neutral city (with the other Horde city yet to be shown on the map). On this subject, where would be a good idea for this type of discussion - on the image talk page? There's probably a fair amount that could be discussed. Kirkburn talk contr 17:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
My only reall comment about future expansions is that I'll help deal with the fallout. I will also NOT allow you to mention this in the Tuskarr article. --18:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
But of course. Kirkburn talk contr 20:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a BBC America?Edit

Wow, never knew that. Is it only aired in England (or Britain, Im not sure which one, sorry)? (Mr.X8 21:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_America Apparently it's BBC.... for America. Pzychotix 23:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember when I was little Animal Planet had tons of shows made by BBC. I think that channel could be owned by it? Oh also, can you get NFL or Major League Baseball in England (Britain)?

Rise of the Horde Edit

Hello Ragestorm! I'm in big big big trouble. Remember my silly theory on Talk:Origin of the Races about Trolls, Elekks and Draenei?

Well, under the high patronage of the FLT I've written a lecture I've posted on the French official WoW Roleplaying forum that sums up what we know at WoWwiki about the lineage of Trolls & Elves. [4]

At the end of this very serious exposé I decided to talk about my theory for the Zandalar's origins. Well, French CMs and players seem to have liked it because it was mentioned in the official community news and on the front page.

But there's still something that upsets me. My theory implies that Draenei met Elekk before the Troll's rise, a while ago.

The article Outland says it's true, but people who've read RotH say the Draenei only arrived on Draenor a couple of centuries ago.

I'd like you to help me! Just to correct the article and tell me (or not) to throw away my theory.--K ) (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly: GROSS!!!
Depends on which world the Elekk came from. RotH states that the Draenei only arrived on Draenor a bit more than two centuries before the corruption of the orcs, but it's unclear where that figure came from. Your theory seems to suggest that the Draenei lived on Azeroth long enough ago to sire the Trolls- however, if that's so, why would they leave Azeroth? Kil'jaeden couldn't have found them.
Finally: GROSS!!
--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The Elekk are clearly from Draenor. But if I tell you this story, I'll have to tell you that story...
We're currently producing a motion picture that'll explain this theory (and also create some more pro-Troll propaganda).
I shall spoil a bit the scenario: it'll star a female draenei whose fiancé was killed at the hands of the recently "man'ari"-turned Eredar militia in a dead end at Mac'Aree. She had herself a narrow escape and was saved by Velen to Oshu'gun. She decided to become a Paladin because of the Naaru's help. Then (well, as RotH seems to imply, nearly 25,000 years later) she met her mount-to-be in Draenor and became utterly mad, thinking this being was the only person that cared for her. Some night she had a dream in which her lover appeared to say the Elekk was his new body.
Then *GROSS*, she has a Troll baby but she gets rejected by all, thinking she mated with an Orc (for the tusks).
Velen trusts her and decides to send the Troll baby along with a Naaru on an unpopulated planet that'll host him. The Naaru becomes then a Troll god and the Troll becomes the first of the Zandalar.
However we still can change it and say the Naaru was drunk and crashed on Azeroth with the "Back to the future" option, before any sentient race had appeared.--K ) (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
File:Peanut.png
What's this about trolls and elekks, and something about ears? I looked into talk page, and read as far as someone mentioning bestiality... um ok, I won't go there... But it would seem that Elekk have ears that look pretty normal for most elephantine species... Peanut opens up a new can of worms, that would suggest, either two species of elekk, or that ears of elekk's disappear before adult-hood, or draenei practice ear-lobe mutilation on both wild and domesticated elekk...Baggins 13:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the "Eared elekk" will be the racial flying mount for the Draenei? <3 Dumbo.
Or maybe Elekk ears grow so large and heavy that they "fall" when they reach adulthood?
I say, Troll (large, pointy and backwards-leaning) ears are made of Elekk long ears+Draenei pointy ears+Draenei horns, anyone disagrees? ^^--K ) (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree... :P Next people are going to say tauren were created between the carnal relations between azotha and old bessy, the cow... Sure I know this is a fantasy universe, but genetic couplings of that type are generally impossible. Two races have to have to be genetically close to almost 100% similar to even have offspring, let alone non-sterile offspring.
In fantasy and sci-fi settings this is generally opened up but limited to most sentient humanoids (by definition of humanoid, looking almost human at least, generally having at least a head, 2 arms, and 2 legs) being able to have offspring despite sometimes extreme physical differences (hooves vs feet? feathers vs. hair? etc...)
Yes, I know in myth and legend it was far more common to have beastiality stories. Queens that mate with bulls creating man-bull creatures, Zeus taking on the form of a swan and mating with Leda, etc. But these ideas and stories are generally left out of material intended to be family friendly, lest it give the wrong ideas...Baggins 19:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Also note that Zeus was a god, and the Bull of the Sea was an avatar of his brother Poseidon, and the Naaru aren't gods. I really don't see the elekk connection. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki