Talk: Rolandius/Archive1

Again, welcome! --Warchiefthrall (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Rolandius (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Spell checking

Thanks for all the spell checking! Out of interest, how are you doing it, WoWWiki:List of common misspellings? Kirkburn talk contr 11:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I was looking at things I could do to help. I saw that link and used it to do a lot of spellchecking. Sometimes I just run into pages that need spellchecking also. I am new here so I am still learning how to edit and look for things that need fixing. Rolandius (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

New articles

Please follow the npc/mob guidelines for creating new pages of mobs. Thankyou, Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 23:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay I got confused between broken pages and wanted pages. I was just filling in information for those red links that allready existed on Special:Wantedpages. Rolandius (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Spell check

There's not really any need to spell check things said on talk pages.--g0urra[T҂C] 10:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I went spell check crazy. LOL Rolandius (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Stubs

Just so you know, {{User:Laurlybot/Donpc}} is not the same thing as {{Stub/NPC}}. What you are doing is setting the page to be replaced by a bot, thus destroying your work. Whereas {Stub/NPC} requests that the page be worked on.

Basically you use the {{User:Laurlybot/Donpc}} on blank pages, and use {{Stub/NPC}} on pages that already have content. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 18:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see. The bot part was allready there so I did not want to erase it, in case that is something you are not supposed to do. So I just added everything underneath it. I guess I am supposed to erase the bot part when I do pages that are in bot from? Rolandius (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, if you start working on an NPC page, just turn the bot stub into an npc stub.

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 03:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I see. I am still a beginner at this it seems. Rolandius (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources: Dotd vs LotC

Rolandius a lot of your recent additions from Lord of the Clans are accidently cited as being from Dotd. Just thought you should know.Warthok Talk Contribs 04:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I must have mixed up my citations. I will correct them all. Rolandius (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As a note, you should sign what you say, by typing four tildes in a row "~~~~". --Sky (t · c · w) 04:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh I didn't think I had to sign it if it was on my own page. Okay I have fixed them now. Rolandius (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Rolandius, on your new pages on weapons and the sort from books you appear to be miss-citing them, i'd correct them for you

but i'm not sure what they are from, all i know is they are not from DotD, Happy editing --User:AngelofDeathandDarkness/Sig 03:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The weapons with the citations are ones I saw mentioned in Day of the Dragon about gladiators, but I had to get the description of those weapons from wikipedia. The weapons with no citation on them are ones that exist in the game, and I had to either get the description of those weapons from wowwiki or wikipedia. I am not sure if that helps? The weapons do exist though. Rolandius (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see I did mix up the citations between DotD and LotC. I will fix them all now. Rolandius (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I was just commenting on the citations because on your page for the broadsword and one other item which I don't recall, i looked in the book in didn't find the word mentioned.--User:AngelofDeathandDarkness/Sig 04:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did miss-cite them like you saw. I am fixing them all up now. Rolandius (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, if you need any help let me know what to re-cite them to and I'll help you out!--User:AngelofDeathandDarkness/Sig 04:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I was able to do it quickly. By the way I have the Warcraft Archive book and not the individual books. I couldn't find the Warcraft Archive book in the citation book section of wowwiki. I left a note on the talk page about this problem but no one responded. Rolandius (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you could add it to the citations list. --User:AngelofDeathandDarkness/Sig 04:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought of that awhile ago but I cannot find an edit option on that page. I also have the book Warcraft War of the Ancients Archive and so I am citing from that book and not the individual books. Rolandius (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to the page of the citations http://www.wowwiki.com/WoWWiki:Citation_index and there is an edit button. --User:AngelofDeathandDarkness/Sig 04:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL Yes but it says something about do not edit on the top of the edit page. I thought only an official person could edit those or something. I am not sure I even know how to make up new book citations. Rolandius (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess your right, :P i didn't actualy click edit, you could ask an admin nicely though i bet and they'd make one or allow you too. Im pretty new to WoWWiki so i don't know myself though.--User:AngelofDeathandDarkness/Sig 04:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL That is why I wrote in the talk page so they could read it. I thought they would see my inquiry. Rolandius (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

A note about Creatures category

Just a usage tip. The Creatures category is for types of creatures not just any creature that isn't obviously a mob (in-game enemy), NPC (interactive non-enemy), or what you might think is a lore character. I re-categorized a bunch of trolls you added as Lore Characters, since they are characters that appear in lore, even if they were mostly just fighting hill dwarves. I re-categorized some horses that way too. You could put the trolls in Humanoids and the horses in Beasts, but those categories are generally only used for classification. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7:18 PM PST 28 May 2008

Okay so if something is only in a novel just put Lore Characters. I will remember that. Rolandius (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

common

nice joke....in lore, even orcs in draenor speak it. dont delete speculations, we don´t really like it. If u like to delete, read rpg books first. have a nice day! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M1330 (talk · contr).

I thought orcs spoke it only when they invaded Azeroth and came in contact with humans? I didn't delete any Common page speculation. I am pretty sure there is no "we" its more like "you". I like to read. It is night here. Rolandius (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

... ROFL... that coming from M1330, I'm sorry but after reading what M1330 had to say I burst out laughing considering what he does to articles.

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 19:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL I was surprised too. I am pretty sure this week he has had the most entries reverted. Also he got mad at me for something I didn't even do, it was an admin I think that took out his entry. Rolandius (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually note quite

"he Kingdom of Gilneas is a human nation located at the tip of the southern peninsula—which is directly south of Silverpine Forest—on the continent of Lordaeron.Template:Cite"

Actually in modern times its the entire peninsula, not just the "tip". See Lands of Conflict, which was written several years after DAy of the Dragon. I'll let you correct it. But if you don't I may need to rollback.Baggins (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL That is what I get for reading books. Rolandius (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well its not just Lands of Conflict but in World of Warcraft MMO as well... As well as World of Warcraft RPG sourcebook, and Allianced Player's Guide, off the top of my head. It might have been the tip at one time, but things changed quite a bit between the end of Day of the Dragon and present times.Baggins (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess since the end of the Day of the Dragon he probably expanded his kingdom to include the whole peninsula since he eventually built that big wall up north. I thought that maybe the peninsula was also called Gilneas. In the World of Warcraft MMO you cannot even go see what is in there really. I am 100% sure at the time though it was only at the top of the peninsula. Rolandius (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

LotC references

Which version of the book do you have? Mine is in pocket version and got only 278 pages, while I see you references as far as page 348.--g0urra[T҂C] 02:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have talked to some posters on here about that. I use the Warcraft Archive and Warcraft War of the Ancients Archive books for my citations. I went to the book citation page and they do not have those on there for some reason. I put a message on the talk page but no one replied to me. The edit page says do no edit so I am not sure what to do except what I have done now—put the title of the book and the page of my book. Rolandius (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If you use Archives, don't put page number citations. Those are specifically for the single book versions. Instead leave the page number blank. The archive is its own beast altogether, and should have its own citation, WCA, or WotAA, or some such, but we haven't decided on it. Also you can check page numbers by looking up the same material on Amazon.com book search, or google books.Baggins (talk) 05:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay. I hope you make citations for them soon. I will leave them blank or something next time. I have dozens of entries with wrong citations I guess. Rolandius (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You could use the ref /ref, and {{reflist}} commands.Baggins (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I really know what all that means.LOL I clicked that link and it went to a blank page. Rolandius (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm changing LotC page numbers to "# in Archives" as I come across them, but they really should be corrected.

Using the reference tags is easy. After the pertinent passage, enclose citations/references in <ref></ref> (<ref>cite or reflink</ref>) and then put == References == and <references/> at the end of the page somewhere (before External links and categories). As far as I can tell, {{reflist}} just adds some fancier formatting to <references/>.--

Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:47 PM PST 2 Jun 2008

What Baggins was probably meaning to mention was {{ref book}}. --Sky (t · c · w) 22:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay I will try to use the method Baggins suggested by using the Amazon.com book search. Rolandius (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: WoW question

It's used mainly on articles that uses lore only from World of Warcraft, that doesn't use lore from RPG or any other source. NPCs doesn't really count as lore in that regard.--g0urra[T҂C] 11:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay I see. Rolandius (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Potato?

I do want us to catch up with Wookieepedia, but Potato might be stretching it a bit. Can you restrict your new articles to things that have notable Warcraft lore? I don't see any Warcraft related info in potato, so I'm gonna mark it for deletion, if that's ok. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:39 PM PST 2 Jun 2008

LOL Yes you can do anything you want I guess. I just put it in there since they mentioned potatoes so much in the Warcraft books I read. Rolandius (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking all those insect pages you just made are in the same category as potato, with what Fandyllic was saying.

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 03:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay if you think so. I am just putting what I read and am not making up these things. I saw wasp already in wowwiki so I thought insects were a good subject. Rolandius (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, wasp has a reason though, as they're in-game. But gnats, bees, and crickets... oh my.

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 04:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL Is there a list of names not to put in wowwiki? That way I know if I am putting in something that is mentioned in WoW, but not that important. Rolandius (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just use your best judgment. LOL.

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 04:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay I will try. Rolandius (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Also try to avoid making pages for one word references, if there is little to no info on the subject. Avoid things that you have to define yourself, using real world definitions, rather than giving a Warcraft definition. One sentence articles should be avoided.Baggins (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay one word references with no info are not good. Rolandius (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

LG references

Similar to above. Amazon shows [The Last Guardian] as having only 320 pages, but your references appear to be from the Archives also. I'm going to mark LG reference pages above 320 as "# in Archives" also as I see them. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:03 PM PST 2 Jun 2008

Is there a way to look at all my contributions beyond just the last 500? Rolandius (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Show Rolandius' last 2000 contributions. --

Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:16 PM PST 3 Jun 2008

LOL I don't know how you did that but thanks. Rolandius (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ex-paladin

Btw, an ex-paladin is a paladin that turns away from the paladin class, and takes on another class. Being killed doesn't make someone an ex-paladin. Ghosts, ghouls, and whatever do not count. A death knight would, as most death knights are alive, and directly gave up their paladin powers for darker abilities, an antithesis.Baggins (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL I read the page. It says if they turn away or are kicked out as in ex-communicated. I didn't say being killed makes you an ex-paladin or else there would be many, many more in that category. These ghost, ghouls, shades are still in the game so they aren't dead in the normal way. Also a death knight can be dead like Arthas. Rolandius (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Arthas is dead? Where does it say that?

Ose ^talk/₃₇₂₁ 11:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Everywhere? He is not a normal human I can tell you that. Normal humans aren't Lich Kings and melded with other people. Rolandius (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

He's not quite "undead" yet, probably... I believe Dark Factions says he is "alive". He's just possessed at this point, a spirit in his body melded to his soul.Baggins (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

He is alive, but as a death knight. Alive just means he still exists in the game. Either way there are Death Knights that are not human anymore in the game. I wrote Ghosts, Ghouls, and Shades in that title because a lot of those Ex-Paladins under the Death Knight title are not Death Knights. They are ghosts, shades and ghouls. Some dranei were thrown in there and a lot of undead were in there who aren't Death Knights. Rolandius (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

1000 club!

By the way, I added a 1000 club badge to your user page, I hope that's okay. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:17 PM PST 3 Jun 2008

LOL I like it. Rolandius (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

If you create something you later don't want, just use {{Speedydelete|<Reason>|<~~~~>}}. Most admins don't look for delete requests on talk pages. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 04:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks. This is a seperate subject, but do you know when the admins are going to choose a citation name for the two Warcraft Archive books? Rolandius (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

First we are actually trying to do way with {{cite}}. We would prefer if you used the ref commands instead. Secondly you can get last guardian page numbers here;

http://books.google.com/books?id=G_Li77NNJ_AC&printsec=frontcover&dq=last+guardian&sig=4wZdHLghGATAuzwSWXNoLd0cLnw

Finally, avoid making articles with one sentence descriptions. If you can't find any more info cross referencing, please just avoid making the page. Thank you.Baggins (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I couldn't find some of the books using the amazon.com method so I will use the goggle.com method also. Rolandius (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As for the one sentence thing, that is what stubs are for.--SWM24 48 18:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that stubs for articles that will unlikely to be unstubbed are just hideous. I mean random dictionary word things. Like for example if a book said "apple" and then creating an article on it, and resorting to using a dictionary definition. If one has to go outside of Warcraft sources to define something it probably shouldn't be an article.

Now a specific Warcraft subject like a unique clan name, race, or character would be another thing altogether. Those articles would be fine. Basically avoid making articles for things that aren't primarily Warcraft related, and add to or create articles for things that are uniquely Warcraft related.Baggins (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Uploading

Could you please add categories to images you upload?--g0urra[T҂C] 14:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

How do I do that? I hit upload, and then it lets me pick the name and thats all. Rolandius (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Write "[[Category:NPC screenshots]]" or the like in the description box.--g0urra[T҂C] 14:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok cool. Rolandius (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You are forgetting the "]]".--g0urra[T҂C] 10:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh woops, I thought I was putting the brackets in also. Rolandius (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[[Category:NPC screenshots]] was just an example... don't classify everything you upload as an NPC screenshot, you've uploaded objects and mobs as well. See Category:Screenshots for the subcats.

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 12:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay so NPC screenshot, Object screenshot or Mob screenshot. Rolandius (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Accomplishment templates

"The" is not used in page titles, though a lot of names do have it in them. I'm not an expert on English grammar, but as far as I know, "the" is used before names when the names has a meaning (in English). I.e. the Molten Core (but not the Zul'gurub). So the only place it shouldn't be used is in page titles. Ose ^talk/₃₇₂₁ 14:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if you mistype a page name, simply move it (with the move button) to the correct name instead of recreating it. Then go back to the "wrong" page and tag it for speedydeletion.

Ose ^talk/₃₇₂₁ 14:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok I see. Rolandius (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Forum

Please be advised that this is not a forum, that that all talk page discussions should only be aimed at discussing content changes to the article, not for general discussion or personal clarification. Such queries can be addressed to the Warcraft pump or directly to a lore-minded user. Also, as a deterrent against the recent edit war, I will be banning the next person who edits species. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 18:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that whenever M1330, who thinks he is an admin, is involved it starts a battle. Rolandius (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the situation: if the war starts again, whoever restarts it will be issued a short ban. I've advised you about the forum issue, and you've otherwise been a good contributor. I'll be watching future developments, but you're fine, by the look of it. As it happens, I now see that Species needs a major overhaul anyway. Just go a little easy on the speculation, ok? Not to spare M1330's feelings, but because too much speculation isn't really helpful. That was LunarFalls' downfall, as I recall. Anyway, carry on. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I will try to avoid the situations. I am not sure who LunarFall is though? Rolandius (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

LunarFalls was a fairly established website that was, prior to WoWWiki's expansion, one of the few places where one could find character biographies and lore information from the WarCraft universe. Because most of their sections were a little thin (given the lack of background information at the time, and even still), they put speculatory (some fairly good) information without marking it. As a result, when LunarFalls' was consulted when writing lore articles here and elsewhere, a number of these speculations made it in as practically established fact, which we're still trying to sort out. They have now completely reoganized as Before the Twisting Nether, WoW fanfiction site. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay so you don't want to become like them. Okie dokie. Rolandius (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

On my radar

I've noticed you have been creating alot of articles without any citations. This is a violation of the WW:LORE policy. Please be careful in the future. Also avoid making articles for instubstantial topics, especially if your ownly addition is a speculation.Baggins (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I did what you said, I tried google book search, but I think those pages they are giving me are from the archive even though I searched the individual books. I have also noticed dozens of entries without citation from many users here. I am not sure if there is a list of people who don't have to list citations or what? Rolandius (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also 90% of the things I cite are not speculation, its just that people have not read the books it seems. Rolandius (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Everyone has to follow the same policy. Just because others weren't caught doesn't mean that you can get away with it if you are caught not doing it. Also a combination of google book search and amazon books will work just fine as long as you make sure to avoid the archive version.

Okay I will try to go through them again and fix them. Rolandius (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also I never said that 90% of your posts are speculation. Although I've come across some like your Abyssal Plane entry that was. Those should be avoided.Baggins (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I know. The Abyssal Plane entry, I just saw that two different entries called themselves that also. The Twisting Nether and the Elemental Plane both say they are also called the Abyssal Plane. Rolandius (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to keep bombarding you, but please write from an in-universe perspective from now on, unless the section is very, very specifically editorial. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay which are some entries that are too editorial? Rolandius (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the naming note on Earthen for example should not be written from a real-world perspective. An editorial section, written from a real-world perspective would be something placed at the end of the article noting something about retcons or how the nature of the character has changed, for example Sargeras#Character_Development. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay the part where I wrote that they kept that name to spite the night elves. I put that in there because I thought I read it somewhere but I guess that could be seen as editorial. Rolandius (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I recall the same passage, so it's not editorial, just uncited. The section itself deals with lore, not with development, so it should be written from an in-universe, as opposed to a real-world perspective, that is not referring to the War of the Ancients books, just the war itself. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL Okay I think I got it. Rolandius (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Twisting Nether and the Elemental Plane both say they are also called the Abyssal Plane"

For the Elemental Plane you are likely thinking of the Abyssal Maw, or the Abyssal Council. Those are something entirely different.Baggins (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability

If the only information on a character is a vague physical description and possibly something about a battle tactic during the War, please don't create a completely new article. Articles of only a few sentences are a waste of space. And please stop adding Lo'Gosh to the ancients list. It's just an orcish name for Goldrinn, we don't add Xaxas to the list of Dragon Aspects and we don't add Lo'Gosh to the list of Ancients. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay what battle tactic article are you talking about? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

He's probably referring to the various names of characters from the novels, that have one sentence off-hand references. Personally I'm not against their use as long as they get cross referenced in other articles relating to their topici. For example a list of the gryphon riders in Tides of Darkness novel could be listed in the listed in the Gryphon rider article. Duncan Senturas paladins are listed in his article, etc. Garona's fictional made up names are more questionable, as they do not exist, and aren't even aliases.Baggins (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay. I thought he was talking about the ancients who are not named in The War of the Ancients. They are important and I saw someone had made a category so might as well help add to it. I am surprised that when I add to it, it is a problem, but whoever added or made the category it was okay for that to happen? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I created the earlier ancient articles. Yes I think those are important. Hopefully they will get filled out in a later book, and given names. If they weren't ancients, and just some unnamed night elf or demon in the enemy forces, I wouldn't suggest making articles... I mean night elfs and demons are dimes a dozen, these guys are at least unique.Baggins (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I never put an article about an unnamed night elf or demon. Why would I do that? I only added to your category of unnamed ancients. Also, I put named night elves in articles just like everyone else I have seen do. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Who said you did, I was just giving examples of what not to do.Baggins (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay.LOL Well so far I haven't done that so I am okay I guess. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Baggins on this one; I was referring to pages such as Hooded ancient and Stick Bug Ancient. And it looks like the Hobbit and I need to discuss notability more urgently then I need to discuss it with you, Roland. Baggins, we should talk elsewhere. I really don't see how one to three sentence articles help at all.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about those. Okay well just tell me if it is okay or not. If not then I am fine with that. It is just that I saw the category and some examples already there before I even added mine. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You're fine, you were only being a good contributor- we'll discuss the notability issue and get back to you. But please lay off of La'gosh. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay no more La'gosh. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if one sentence issue is a problem the sentences could just be combined into the Ancients article. Although that article already is pretty large as it is.Baggins (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Big? have you seen Sylvanas Windrunner recently? Ancient is a spring chicken. Your talk page, Baggins, no need to take up Roland's space.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Roandius since it somewhat relates to those articles, make sure you don't capitalize things that shouldn't be capitalized. Only capitalize something if the book capitalizes it. In which case it means its important. However don't capitalize race names unless 90% of sources capitalize it.Baggins (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. When you create new pages though about a one word subject, it automatically gets capitalized though doesn't it? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about the first letter, just make sure you don't capitalize second words, or in the article itself.Baggins (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay cool. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey hey hoe hoe your sig has got to go...

Your sig breaks up talk pages a bit much... well least the image does, I'm going to go ahead an shrink the image some more if thats alright. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 04:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ya its the same reason I don't use my sig too much.Template:Baggins

Your sig is the best lol.

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 04:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tbh coobra, you should probably change yours also. Moving things are bad for page loads... --Sky (t · c · w) 04:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if I could make an improved scan of the picture, and if that would allow for a higher quality smaller icon? I love the sig, but its just too bulky currently...Baggins (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I liked my animated sig.LOL Well I'm trying to find this one icon, but I cannot remember where I saw it before. It looks like a determined paladin's face and he is wearing a gold colored helmet. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I would suggest you not use the template {{sig}} directly in your signature. Instead of {{subst:{{sig}}}}, do {{subst:sig|x|y}}. --Sky (t · c · w) 04:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay I don't know what that all means. I just copied what the help page said to do. I think it might have even been your suggestion to someone in there. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Aww... but I love my snake, it wiggles... Lets just forget I said anything =P.

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 04:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL See Coobra you poked the tree to get an apple and a dozen apples fell on you. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't be silly... I wouldn't poke a tree... I'd hurt my finger lol.

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 04:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL Well I meant you got a stick, then poked the tree. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Rolandius: Show me what you have in the box in your preferences that the instructions told you to copy and paste something in. --Sky (t · c · w) 04:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok the instructions told someone to paste Rolandius

(talk - contr). Of course I inserted my own name. Then click Raw Signature. And finally hit save. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, change that to {{subst:Sig|Rolandius|Rolandius|icon=Wc3Knight.gif|x20px}} that code. --Sky (t · c · w) 05:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay and I leave my Sig template page alone? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Why would a snake poke a tree, he'd just have a beutiful nude women do it for him, and then have her eat the apple.Baggins (talk) 05:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL Oh well snakes can't reach a tree anyways. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ, there are lots of tree climbing snakes. Although I don't think cobras belong to that group, at least the types I know of.Baggins (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That is true. Ya I don't know if the Coobra type of cobra could climb trees. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I only climb trees when a tauren stampede is in progress.

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 19:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL I am guessing there aren't any tauren around hearing you say that? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Cite

BTW, you don't have to capitalize cite, its left hidden, nor is it a proper noun. It also has nothing to do with grammar. Save yourself some time don't do pointless edits.

Okay, just wanted all the words to look the same — either all cite or all Cite. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 07:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't become anal rententive or obsessive compulsive it will become the death of you, :p.Baggins (talk) 07:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL You can say that again. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 09:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Soloed Dungeons

I dont want to offend you but i find it kinda hard to believe that you soloed the steam vaults and shattered halls, now im not saying its not true but i would like to know how you did it. Mizrath (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh ya I haven't.LOL I am working on creating some templates in my sandbox, and I guess I linked the whole sandbox page to my user page instead of the ones I actually soloed. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 09:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Artwork

Why are you adding random artwork with Blizzard copyright? g0urra[T҂C] 12:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

So I can put them in thier respective pages — or someone can add anything they know about it on the page. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 12:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think they should be added to existing relevant pages, 'Terrokar Edge' could easily go on the Bone Wastes page.That is just my opinion.--SWM24 48 18:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well Terrokar Edge is sort of in between two different areas. It is not one or the other really. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

don't add too many it is a copyright issue.Baggins (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought you said it had to be official or else it doesn't count? I mean half of the images on here are copyright aren't they? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Essentially you can be breaking copyright by taking too many images without permission (well technically taking any image without permission). So generally the smart idea is to only take images if they are truly needed, only use a section of an image, and only if they are an improvement over an already uploaded image. Generally speaking there isn't a reason to upload every single variation of something, for example. Not unless it adds something important and new.Baggins (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I don't think I uploaded too many variations though so I am okay. Most of them were unique — as in there wasn't an image on the page I added it too or the page didn't even exist yet. Although I have seen pages on wowwiki with lots of pictures of the same thing. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Dashes

I'm sorry in advance, I could easily be in the wrong here, as SWE grammar is a fickle thing, but I notice that whenever you edit grammar you're not just fixing the dashes, you're replacing commas with them and are using dashes in place of commas or parenthesis in most articles. In a few cases, this alters the tone and flow of the writing. I must also remind you once again to stick to an in-universe writing style. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I will look for that. A lot of times though the sentence is a run-on sentence. It has 8 commas and is the size of three sentences. Other times I replace a hyphen with a dash since a hyphen is wrong in that situation. Still, I will try to look out for altering the flow of writing. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In situations like that, it's better to split into separate sentences. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I wanted to keep it as close to thier original entry as I could. So I just put hyphens so thier sentences makes a bit more sense. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair intent, but spiltting run-on sentences flows better. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay. Well goodbye dashes and hello periods. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Citations

I've warned you about this before. But yes some things may be in "conflict" with other sources on the surface. Two quotes may be directly in opposing of each other even. A citation gives a link back to that quote so people can see what was said for themselves. That won't help it "merge" with whatever it is conflict with, but it shows that alternative interpretations exist.

Changing info and completely ignoring the info that was cited, to turn it into something else to "make it fit" is not only fallacious (you can't simply say the source said something other than what it actually said) its against our policies. Do not try to "correct" cited sources, unless you know for sure that someone mis-quoted, mis-paraphrased the source given.

If I have warn you on this issue again, I will take actions.Baggins (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ya I have no idea what you are talking about. I never, that I remember, erased things that had citations on it for no reason. I erased things that had no citations on it, but not the real cited stuff. The times I did erase something with a citation was because it was wrong. I looked up that citation and it was just wrong. For example, the citation that dragons + gryphons = wyverns was wrong. I fixed that, then you put it back even though I told you the citation was wrong. Things work both ways I thought. Also if you look at the history on that page mysteriously my edit is "gone". Unless I am missing something in the history, I don't see my name there. Now the page currently is changed to what I said a long time ago: that dragons, wyverns, and gryphons have the same ancestor but not dragon + gryphon = wyvern. If you want to keep false information in wowwiki go ahead. I want to know who erased my name from the history, that would be interesting. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"wrong" again two different sources may state seperate things. For example in reference to Azshara city. Early warcraft III stuff for example had Ashenvale (aka Ashenvale Forest region) all the way to the sea. Later stuff has Azshara as part of that region. Look at early warcraft III maps in game for example. Thus the context being used in A&HC was using the ashenvale region definition, rather than the subregions of Ashenvale and Azshara as it things are split in WoW. If you change the citation you take the book out of context and are lieing about what the book states thus making the "citation" incorrect, it ceases to be citing what it was originally citing.Baggins (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

As for wyverns either you have a different version of the manual or you clearly overlooked this quote pg 27.

Wyvern Rider

The sentient wyverns of Kalimdor were eager to ally themselves with the shamanistic horde. Impressed by the orcs' commitment to honor and victory, the wyverns allowed the orcs to ride them into combat against those who would disturb the tranquility of Kalimdor and its denizens. The wyverns, who share a common ancestry with both dragons and gryphons, use their powerful claws and razor-like fangs against both airborne attackers and ground troops, while their riders may hurl envenomed spears at the enemy.

Clearly it wasn't the book was wrong it was your sourcing of the information, or you have a flawed manual. If you would like a screenshot of the manual I can give it to you...Baggins (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay for the Ashenvale citation you have the book so I will go with that. I am just saying in the game, as of today, Ashenvale has no beach. As for the wyvern citation, I still have no idea where you see it saying that dragons and gryphons were parents of a wyvern. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't read this sentence? "The wyverns, who share a common ancestry with both dragons and gryphons"? Rlandius the point I was pointing out was that Azshara region is part of the entire Ashenvale forest that covers most of the flank of western Hyjal Mountain. The region visitede in the game is only one very small part of that entire forest. But I guesss that's too hard to understand? Its mentioned in the Ashenvale article... This is one of those world scale issues we have tried to warn you about previously. That lore maps do not always match up with the game world maps, because the lore world is a much larger beast.Baggins (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay Ashenvale has a beach then I guess. It says wyverns share a common ancestry with both dragons and gryphons. That does not really mean dragons and gryphons were the parents of wyverns. What am I missing here? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what your talking about the wyvern page only quotes that sentence, and you removed the sentence saying it was wrong... It never said "parents"....Baggins (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so.LOL I left that sentence in there. The sentence I took out said dragons and gryphons created wyverns. I looked the citation up in the manual and it didn't say that. I took it out of the page but then you undid my edit. I guess you forgot that part. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What day did this happen, Rolandius? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Um I don't have a clue what your talking about. Check the page history... There is nothing of that sort in the page (the only reference to parent is to "parental instinct"). There is nothing of the sort of sentence you suggest even 8 edits back or so... If there was I would have been the one who removed it since I made most of the last edits on that page, besides kesmana on something. So no I have no clue what your talking about...Baggins (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I know Baggins I am trying to edit my page right now to tell you I had the wrong page.LOL But my page keeps getting edited, so here goes. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I like your red sentences, but I can read and I allready agree with those sentences. You don't have to repeat it and then make it in a red font. Okay I looked it up. It wasn't the "wyvern page" so I might have confused Baggins, it was the "future race ideas" page. So I got the page wrong — although you can see it did happen. Look at the drakonid and dragonspawn entries. I tried telling people it was wrong and editing it but no one listened or they undid my edits.http://www.wowwiki.com/Future_race_ideas Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well i'd point out, that page is a speculation page. Secondly its marked as a "?" white speculation which means it is pure speculation. So people are speculating based on the common ancestry comment. As much as you might not like it it is following the policy for that page. It does have evidence (which can rougly be interpreted that way), connecting them (and there isn't anything to specifically refute it). Now if it was marked dark green or light green I'd really have a problem with it.Baggins (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Also you might want to look up what ancestry means, and what "common ancestry" means. Gryphons by themselves do not share ancestry with dragons, and dragons do not share ancestry with gryphons... If you use definition of ancestry that really can mean one thing that I can think of.... Do you know what that probably is?Baggins (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay I will go with that. But I have seen people using that idea on other pages. Those other pages, like Origin of the Races, are speculation pages too though. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay it could mean that, but wouldn't they have just said gryphons + dragons = wyverns? Also just look at the wyvern, the thing doesn't look anything like a recent descendant of a dragon and gryphon. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you like to read, but biology and genaology book tend to use the term "common ancestor" or "ancestors" because its more technical and not "grade school". I can't think of anyone who would write that kind of informatoion in a book like a math problem. We have acccess to a more detailed language than that kind of grunt + grunt = grunt. We have moved beyond language like "me tarzan you women You go treehouse".... At least I hope we have moved beyond that.... Wyern does have a grotesque lion type head/body, with a dragon like mouth, loosely. The wings of dragons are somewhat batlike, like the wyverns. What were you expecting out of something that shares both races as ancestors?Baggins (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well how about a gryphon head or dragon head? Where in the world did a lion's head come from, if the ancestry is recent. I mean a half-elf (if it had an elf and human as parents) looks like a human and/or elf. You wouldn't expect bat wings on a half-elf unless something happened way, way back in thier ancestry. I am just saying that the dragon + gryphon = wyvern did not happen or else there would be something in the wyvern that looks much more similiar to a dragon and gryphon. I do think they can still share ancestors. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Where did the lionhead come from? The lion genes that gryphon have? Maybe you should ask Blizzard. We have no idea why blizzard said they were the ancestors of wyverns, just that they are. Yes you wouldn't expect a half-elf to have wings, since neither parents have wings. At least wint draongs grypons both have wings, and dragons have skin-like wings.Baggins (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok then I'll go with what you said, I guess dragons and gryphons together made the wyvern somehow. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Texture models

Adding screenshots of textures models, without putting them in existing articles about it, is considered datamining and against the DNP policy. You have been warned. g0urra[T҂C] 10:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay riddle me this. How does an existing article with a screenshot in it allready ever get created? Also it says under the screenshot page that it is alright as long as you cannot find an in-game screenshot. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 10:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Polar Bear Cub.png: has already been discussed that it violates the NDA policy (according to the Baggins)
Image:Orca.png: as you already saw on the page there was a screenshot on the page, so no need to add another texture model. Also under NDA by the above.
Image:Raccoon.png: considered datamining since there are no raccoons in-game.
Image:Rein Deer.png: duplicate of Metzen the Reindeer's model, there's no need to add a crappy texture screenshot when there's one available.
Image:Mobat.png: the name of Jeklik's bat form model. There's already an existing screenshot of it.

I'm sure that you can understand now that you're not allowed to add screenshots of random texture models and files that you find in WoW Model Viewer or elsewhere, just because you can't find an in-game screenshot of it right away. g0urra[T҂C] 10:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well tell me this then. 1) Why are there pages on wowwiki with WoW Model Viewer screenshots. 2) Why does it say this on wowwiki, "WMV images are allowed on the wiki, though in-game screenshots are preferred." Source you ask? Why wowwiki of course WoW Model Viewer. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 10:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I can explain both of your questions with that it's allowed to upload WMV images as long as they can be found in-game. By adding texture files such as this one you do not add anything to any existing content, as you made a completely new page devoted to that single texture model. The polar bear cub cannot be found in-game, and has been said that it's under the NDA, and I respect that and so should you. g0urra[T҂C] 10:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well okay now I know it has to be in-game, although I have seen some WMV images of things on wowwiki not in-game. The polar bear cub subject I had no idea was already talked about by people. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 10:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The

The Pagename is "Burning Legion" because there is no point whatsoever to calling the page The Burning Legion and having it show up under T in an index. When referring to the organization in any is "the Burning Legion," unless it is being used as an adjective ("Burning Legion agents" or "agents of the Burning Legion" nor "The Burning Legion agents" or "agents of Burning Legion"). --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I went on the WorldofWarcraft.com website to try to find any clues. Of course they have only factions up there, not all the groups that you can find on wowwiki, so it will still be hard to figure it out. On there they just call it "Burning Legion". For example they have "Cenarion Circle" and "Farstriders". But then they also have "The Consortium" and "The Violet Eye". I am not sure how they know when to call something "The" or just the name of the organization. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Burning Legion and "The Burning Legion" are interchangable as titles. Blizzard alternates between them in many different sources...Baggins (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. It gets confusing, on thier site under factions it just says Burning Legion. They don't use "The" often only in "The Consortium" and "The Violet Eye". Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the information they have. You'll notice that in normal sentences, they say "the Burning Legion." Don't bother changing "Burning Legion" to "the Burning Legion or vice versa, if it's in an infobox, it doesn't matter in that case. --Ragestorm (talk · contr)

LOL Okay then why was mine reverted back if it doesn't matter?

The first one was because I think that "The Burning Legion" looks better than "Burning Legion." The second revert was unneeded.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well okay, but Sargeras being part of "The Burning Legion" and Kil'jaeden being part of "Burning Legion" looks crazy. So I changed his to match yours. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about looking "crazy", but no problem there. I'm just saying that you don't have to go out of your way.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL I am not sure why, maybe he got mad at me, but Baggins is going crazy on the World page. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Art

For future reference, a screenshot is an image from the game, either WoW or one of the RTSs. Drawn work and that Magtheridon/Mannoroth are not screenshots. Also, please be more careful- the image of Archimonde you uploaded is already in the system. You've done pretty good with linking your images, but a word of caution: cluttering up an article with images does nobody any favors.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay I should have said image then. I couldn't find that image of Archimonde anywhere on wowwiki, I thought I was the first to upload it. I didn't see it on his page. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That's because it's the headline image on eredar and man'ari eredar. Blizzard used it in the BC bestiary as a generic eredar image, so we didn't bother putting it in his article. Similarly, Blizzard put Mannoroth's head on Magtheridon's page. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh by the way, I am not sure if it was misspelled by them or just retconned, but the picture by Blizzard of Archimonde was titled Archemonde. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a concept picture. Could be either a typo or an abandoned spelling. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You know on those charts where they have the different draenei species. They always have on wowwiki a question mark for what the original eredar looked like. Isn't Velen that missing link? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so Velen looks similar to other draenei, apart from his former skin color. I personally don't like those charts, because it assumes that both branches have been changed by magic. I think the draenei are physically identical to the original eredar (we know for a fact that fel energy mutates, so the man'ari are definetely changed). --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok you rbanned.=

Ok, we have warned you repeatedly about removing inforatino if its fro a citad source, and you seeme dot be ignoring my respeated attempts at getting you to read the shadows and light page's contents. Me and ragesgorm ave warned you about aking un-editorial discussions. we have warned you about initiating edit wars.... You keep on adding things tha't don't even fit, and are of pure speculation on your part. So we are tired of giving you mercy, You will be getting a short ban. Hopefully when you return you will know better. Sorry.Baggins (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Wowpedia