Talk: Rolandius/Archive3

Older comments moved to:

User talk:Rolandius/Archive1

and

User talk:Rolandius/Archive2

Creating new articles

Do you ever look at other similar articles when you create new ones? For example the World of Warcraft: Issue 13 and World of Warcraft: Ashbringer: Issue 3 should be compared to World of Warcraft: Issue 12 and World of Warcraft: Ashbringer: Issue 2 respectively. g0urra[T҂C] 12:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ya...I don't see what your saying. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 12:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay now I see. You wanted me to fill the whole page? I thought someone else would add on to it. I was just starting the page off. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 12:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Either you add the information that is available, complete with templates and the boilerplate, or you don't. g0urra[T҂C] 12:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that is your opinion. Other admins have said something is better than nothing. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 13:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

For the love of all that is holy.... stop filling the edit summary with vague comments like "grammar edit", or "self edit". Use the edit summary the way it was intended, give a bit more detailed summery of the reasons for changes, and a bit more detailed description of what you changed.Baggins (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay I was trying to be brief, especially if I am doing a few edits in a row or it is an edit of my own I just made a mistake on within the minute. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 13:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm guilty of forgetting to do this myself at times. But please try to use the show preview feature if possible to avoid the "within a minute" problem.Baggins (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning on this issue. Your edits have been repeatedly not always correct or up to our standards. Thus we need you to give a more detailed summery of exact changes as you make them. If you keep on using vague summeries such as "factual correction", or "self edit" you may be prevented from editing in the future. If you don't have enough room to give a detailed explanation in the edit summery, then give the explanationin the talk page.Baggins (talk) 04:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought you told me to start using the "Standard summaries" bar. That is what I am doing instead of just a few of my own words. In fact, that is what everyone else is doing by the recent edits I am looking at right now correct? Also, I haven't used "self edit" since you told me yesterday. I don't know where you saw that. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm telling you to give an exact description of your change. If its a grammar edit describe the specific type of grammar edit your making, and in which portion of the article.

Don't just say, "factual correction", describe what specific facts you are fixing, and which portion of the article.

Etc, etc. If you don't have enough space in the edit summaries bar, then put your explanation in a new section of the talk page.

If you are going to edit at the pace you are currently editing this is important in order to keep track of the reasons for your edits.

We need even more detail from you than the normal user, as you are currently in a probationary period (as a suspected problem user), for mistakes you have done recently to policies and accuracy.Baggins (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I told you a few days ago I was going to move a lot of this stuff back to where it was remember because I moved it incorrectly? Also, read the Kalimdor page. I have cited Teldrassil as a continent and also the citation about Mulgore and others being subcontinents is wrong. Those are regions aka zones. The subcontinents are Northern, Central, and Southern. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The citation is a reference to a certain map, the link has been given. Yes the map doesn't make much sense compared to later maps, but yes it split Kalimdor along several large, regions. IN that particular map, it has Mount Hyjal, Mulgore, Durotar, and Kalimdor as major regions. It uses the same font and text size as the regions shown on the eastern kingdoms side of the map, Azeroth, Quel'thalas, Lordaeron, and Khaz Modan.

In anycase the point is not to discuss individual edits here, but that you need to now give detailed descriptions of all your edits from now on. Until we deem you are out of the probation period, and deem that your edits are to the quality that we expect from wowwiki users.Baggins (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay but guess what? Azeroth, Lordaeron, etc. have been called continents in lore. Mulgore, Durotar, etc. have been called zones not continents...at least to my lore knowledge. Also, look at the map on the page below. It has Mulgore, Darkshore, and half a dozen regions on the map not continents. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for following instructions. It makes much easier to see when you take things out of context, or add comments that are of speculatory nature.Baggins (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well check out Kalimdor talk page. I am not sure what your logic on that is but a continent is a continent if so called even if its an island or not. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So, by that logic, if I said GM'S Island was a continent, it would automatically be registered as a continent? Toran Wildpaw of the Frenzyheart (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If it was from a source and not made up. Why would you deny a real source saying that something is a continent? If it was only one mention though and several mentions that it was just an island I would still keep it in the page for posterity somewhere because you can run into sometimes sources that contradict each other, but that does not mean you should remove one like it never happened. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 15:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't. I'm simply saying how saying "a continent is a continent if so called even if its an island or not" is foolish like that. Because like I said, by your logic, if I said such a tiny island like GM's Island was a continent, no doubt someone here would rush to edit that into the GM's Island page. And then we'd most likely get flamed since the information was pretty innaccurate, considering GM's Island is nothing more then a tiny island. Toran Wildpaw of the Frenzyheart (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am saying if it is from a source...you know cited? Not just made up by a user. A source exists calling Teldrassil an island continent. I didn't say this. All I did was see the information and then put it on the page with a citation. So far I have not seen anything saying GM island is a continent. A continent could be a continental landmass or a continental island. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 16:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I know that. But honestly. One source says Teldrassil is a continent. One. That doesn't automatically make it a continent. If it did, no doubt Teldrassil would be labeled as a different continent then Kalimdor in WoW. Well whatever, I doubt I should be meddling in affairs that aren't particuarly related to me, so I'm done on this subject, and I'll continue watching the war between you and Baggins go on. Toran Wildpaw of the Frenzyheart (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I know it is one source. I am not saying to announce to the world that Teldrassil is a continent. It should be mentioned though somewhere on the page and not removed forever. There is no war going on. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 16:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

-stares at the various arguements between Rolandius and Baggins- Well, I'm not particularly sure if I believe you about that, but oh well. Toran Wildpaw of the Frenzyheart (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Move along nothing to see here. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 16:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Relevance issues

I'm sure Ragestorm has told yo before, about relevence issues. Something that may be intended more as an injoke or easteregg may not merit having its own article. The info probably should be folded into the closest related article, i.e. the existence of Eng-land is not confirmed beyond the reference of a possible deranged character. References to it are not likely to be expanded on, and therefore it would fit better as a sidenote for that NPC's character page. It probably shouldn't even be treated as a real location until something confirms its existence. If the subject of an article is likely to require nearly 98% speculation, and known information is likely to only fill in less than even a full sentence on its own, its probably not worth having as its own article, and probably should be folded into whatever related subject spawned it.Baggins (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The NPC that talks about Eng-land is crazy? Wait a second I remember you said injokes are not okay but eastereggs are okay as in this example.Flowerpicker clan Rolandius

(talk - contr) 13:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Flowerpicker clan has substantial relevance as its existence is being part of hidden game code, and part of the game's internal mechanics. IT is a hidden game feature. Plus, the main description of the hidden file is more than one setence long, and the main description is not made up of 98% speculation.

It has slightly more in common to references to file names like "crack elf" (although crack elf could be folded into blood elf). Unlike crack elf, however, flowerpicker clan does't really have anything it can be directly folded into, as its own subject altogether.

Also one reference to "eng-land" is not even remotely similar, nor useable for creating a page, it doesn't have any detailed info whatsoever, its not a hidden feature in the game code. NOw if more references to Eng-land appear in the future from more than one character, then I'd say those then it would have more relevence and worth having an article discussing known facts of said place if it exists or not. But as of right now any info related to it and any speculation can remain in the character page of the one who brings up her said belief. Now, I seem to recall Ragestorm has gotten onto you over Eng-land issue in the past... I'd suggest you leave it that and don't argue on the issue...Baggins (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay I took out Eng-land. I don't think Ragestorm said anything about my Eng-land page since he left it alone. I think he talked about my Pinkspear page though which was removed and then even deleted from a page it was folded into. I think you put it back into the folded into page though. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 13:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember ever seeing your Pinkspear page. I do recall the Eng-land page, and I recall that there was discussion about it, though it apparently wasn't with you... ---Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought someone said something about my Pinkspear page? They said it was just an in-joke and removed the page and then even removed it from the page it was on previously where I got my idea. I think Baggins then told them it was okay as just part of that previous page because it was an easter egg. I could be mixing things up since it was around 2 months ago. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 13:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

References in folded pages are fine if it can be confirmed to be related to the subject of the article. There are alot of injoke references in language pages for example. Eng-land's relevence is pretty much limited to Natasha. Since its an offhand remark with no details telling us if its real, her imagination, or simply an injoke it probably shouldn't be put into pages like Continents (which would be applying a bit too much speculation). If it was real, for all we know it could be a town... But that's the problem with it, there isn't much that can be done with the info besides speculation about it...Baggins (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was okay on the Continents page. You have South Sea in there. It is just speculation that there is an unnamed large island in there. Also, the section did include "large islands or nations". It could be a large island or nation. It is much better than "some islands in the South Sea". Rolandius

(talk - contr) 13:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Your starting again Baggins. You deleted ominous island which is in lore and has several sentences. You just told me a few mins ago to write summaries when I edit yet you just deleted two pages with summary of nothing. Is this going to start again? I can delete too. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 13:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the page was the page name. It was a topic without a true name, or official title, just a vague description. I see we don't have an actual island article. I'd probably suggest the way that continent article is being used it probably should be renamed "land masses" to avoid confusion. IN anycase I folded the island into the continent article for the time being, as it is better related to that topic, and I removed the title you used since it isn't an official titel for that island. I've tried to point out that the island doesn't actually have a name, and have reworded the info to reflect that fact.

Also you must be blind, I gave reason why I deleted the page in the talk page...Baggins (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Land masses is a vague name too. Continents is not. I think there shouldn't be any islands or lands on that page unless they are some sort of continent-type landmass. Just put all those islands, nations, or whatever on an "Island" page. Also, you just told me write "better" edit summaries and then you left yours "blank"? You didn't say anything about talk pages. Also another thing with my pages on subjects I found in The Art of World of Warcraft. Gourra said don't make pages out of those brief subjects just list them on the Art of World of Warcraft page so I said okie dokie. Next thing you know I look and find a bunch of brief pages made by people on subjects found in the Art of world of Warcraft. I am confused. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 13:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

They're just trying to slow you down... you're making too many pages, most of which are (and you have to admit) pointless. Don't get me wrong, you do make useful inputs and additions, but some pages just aren't needed.

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 21:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"Not an official article name; "southern islands" could be any "south" island."

I.E. southern islands is a generic description, its not a proper noun. This would be the same issue as you using the description "ominous island" as if it was the actual name of the island, despite the islands not actually given a name. The bigger problem with southern islands is that its a description used for alot of islands found in the south, or the South Seas. If it had been capitalized in its original source "Southern Islands", theyet it would have been a proper name, and you would have been justified in making the page, but it wasn't. This is also some what related to one of the previous mistakes you were warned about, "not to create speculatory titles" (stuff like ). Finally remember, "...but other people are doing it" is not a valid excuse or justification for ignoring warnings, it is an "Appeal to Common Practice" a type of fallacious reasoning. Remember two wrongs does not make a right.Baggins (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I am still confused on why I was put on the list. I didn't re-create any deleted pages more than once. I just asked in the talk page why they were deleted. I thought I was told to use talk pages? Each page has a talk page correct? Also, where did I create a page that was confrontational? This is silly. I myself revert vandalism when I see it then next thing you know I am thrown on the vandalism list. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a quota on the number of warnings you have to give each day or what? I can't even comment on my own user page without some warning. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

For your future reference its a "violation list". It is not "vandalism list". Being a suspect doesn't automatically make you a vandal. However it does mean that you commited some violation of policy. It serves as a second degree warning, for a person who commits the same type of violation more than once (after being warned for the first violation). Being a suspect also doesn't mean you will automatically be banned. Basically if you are suspected, you need to look at what you are being supected of, be warned by it, and do not repeat the same type of offense in the future.Baggins (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Someone edited the page and added some comment in addition to Gourra's. Is that allowed? I never even talked to that person. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if someone notices that you may be a repeat offender (by seeing past listings on the page), they can point that out by adding it to the violation list. It is allowed, and it can be used to determine your position and punishment if you make future violations. The violation list is used by all wowwiki members.Baggins (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL okay. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Signing article

I thought by now that you know you shouldn't sign in articles, and especially not through recreating deleted articles. There's talk pages for that. g0urra[T҂C] 14:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

One, Ragestorm already told me that and I saw your comment on the page summary. You don't have to tell me in triplicate. Second, I thought there wasn't a talk page if the page was deleted and didn't exist anymore so i wrote in there on accident. I then wrote in the talk page but I guess you missed that part. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 14:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Relevance, DNP, and ignoring warnings from admins

For ignoring all the warnings given you by various admins, and continuing to be belligerent in adding non-Warcraft-related articles, and because you have been banned before for shorter periods for the same reason, I am blocking you from editing for 1 month. Your appeal, if you have one, may be posted on this page or e-mailed to me, or Kirkburn via the e-mail user functionality of the wiki. See you in a month. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 04:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. What non-Warcraft-related articles? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The most recent ones are Beggar, Commoner, Novelist. I've been deleting others I saw you create in the past couple of days. --Pcj (T•C) 04:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And what is the matter with them? They were all on wowwiki listed as professions. I just added a page or some NPC's to it. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

See Baggins's first post to you under #Relevance issues above. --Pcj (T•C) 04:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify commoner was ok, as it is an actual RPG NPC Class, with a definition. However, you redlinked generic things in the article and made spinoff stub pages. We have gotten onto you many times for pages of this sort, and deleted many such pages, fowler comes to mind as one of your first such pages. Also as I've told you in the past, avoid making stub articles and pad them with non-warcraft source information (do not go to a dictionary as a citation, for example). Avoid using real-world definition sources to support the creation of a page.

I also should mention that many of these aren't actual rpg classes, though the professions mentioned in the RPG. They are only titles.

Also a template is not a proper citation method. Do not use it as a substition to using ref, or {{cite}}, etc.

-Baggins (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ya I can't remember "fowler". I went to the Crafts and professions and Commoner pages and saw those professions. I check WoW and guess what? They are in the game. I thought I would just make pages for them so people can see that there is an NPC called Beggar, there are novels, and there are weavers. I was trying to say that they are "commoners" which is itself an RPG class. What is the difference between my pages and Lumberjack, Military commander, and Mortician? I am not sure what the template thing your talking about is. If it is the Lady Prestor page you are talking about all I did was copy the way the reference was made for the other Prestor pages in the relatives infobox. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Any replies? Beggar is real, Commoner was already there, and novels are real. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I checked out beggar. You were not exactly wrong for it's creation. But you went about makng the page improperly. As a npc you should have put the npc/stub template on it, and avoided using RPG template. That only confuses people. You also need to avoid using the wrong categories.

The rpg template is not a citation method. Do not put it on the page in place of actually using "cite" or ref commands. That only confuses people.

Weaver, is not a profession page, its the name of a Dragon npc.

There are novels, not novelists. novelist should be redirected into "novels", which I've done. A novelist by itself is not a proper page name.

Mortician had its own unique article in the RPG (an a few paragraphs devoted to it even, no need to pad it with non-warcraft definitions). Stuff like that is great. Its the reason why we have pages for stuff like Grunt, or Peon.

Military commander has its own article in the rpg, and a specific warcraft definition (it isn't cited to a non-warcraft source), and appears in several books in the RPG (its actually a game term as well).

You made lumberjack out of nothing (and yes its a stub, and bad). It has to go in its current state. You need to avoid things that do not have their own article sections, and lack official definitions.

Finally just because something is mentioned in a sentence under another topic doesn't mean its worthy of having its own topic.Baggins (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't exactly get a chance to do much. I was banned within a minute. I put the RPG last and I put it because there is the WoW mention and the RPG mention. I am pretty sure if I didn't put the RPG part I would have been told why didn't you put the RPG part. Weaver I didn't get the chance to realize it was a dragon I thought it was some weaver page someone made. Once again I was banned within minutes. I linked wood chopper to lumberjack I didn't make up that page. A lumberjack is a wood chopper. You are just making up stuff for some reason. Those were all good links. Beggar is an actual NPC. Wood cutters are Lumberjacks. There are novels in the game, not to be confused with just regular books. Also, what happened to this? "He is free to make edits, but anything you guys have problems with, come talk to me and I'll chat with him. I'm not so bothered by his edits as it seems the rest of you are, so maybe it would work." Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Lumberjack, I looked at the page just minutes ago. It is not redirected to "wood chopper" and the entire page was made by you. I hardly made that page up... as for your last part, that discussion was between you, me, sky and ragestorm. PCJ was not part of that discusison nor was he part of any problems that appeared on that page. He is not bound by whatever went on in there, and is free to make his own decisions based on your past actions. He is free to admin based on his own decisions. It seems he decided that your list in suspect, as well you continued mistakes made recently was enough to ban you. Just because novels exist in the game, doesn't mean "novelist" is a relevent term or important. Especially since yo had to give it a non-warcraft source definition. I had to go about fixing all the mistakes you made in those articles after you made them. I abide by his decision.Baggins

Finally, no you wouldn't have gotten in trouble for not putting the rpg template up. RPG template should only be used if the article info is orignally from the RPG. Something that appears across several sources probably shouldn't have any template. {{multisource}} would have been a better option, or no template at all. Stacking templates is bad, as is putting the fat templates in the middle of articles. Also as I said before using the template is not an excuse for properly using {{cite}}, or ref features. YOu have been warned previously for not corrently citing material.Baggins (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

How are you saying I made up the page? All I did was put wood chopper since wood chopper was there already. Okay so Pcj was not aware. Tell him about it. You can't just say okay here is a solution woops nope nevermind your banned. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be confused, PCJ was in his right as an admin to make the decision on his own. The idea by sky waa suggestion made in confidence to me, ragestorm and you, and no one else. Nor was it a freepass to continue making mistakes. Also as far as I know PCJ has more experience with Administration than sky, ragestorm or even me. He he been an admin on several wikis. He may even have seniority on this staff (though I don't know for sure). I must warn you again its not my job to step between you and PCJ. If you want to tell him, tell him yourself (you will not pit me against him, and I will respect his decisions, whatever they may be). But remember as an admin he can make his own decisions, and he doesn't necessarily have to agree with another admins suggestion.Baggins (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll apoligize for accusing lumberjack as your page. It was actually coobras. I've taken the time to fix it by making it an disambig page, as there are alot of lumberjack NPCs in WoW.Baggins (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ya, this is a bit too much trouble. You guys are just making up half of the reasons to ban me. With your enthusiasm to ban me you have missed the evidence. It is like you do not read half of what I write. Pcj banned me because he said the latest pages I made, like Beggar and Commoner, were DNP. Beggar is an NPC in the game so I don't see how that was wrong. Commoner I never even created that page. Now you said that somehow I had said that you made up some "wood chopper" page and that I made it up instead. Neither of us made up the "wood chopper" page. All I did was link the word "wood chopper" to the Lumberjack page so people can see the word "wood chopper" and go to the profession, Lumberjack. All I did was see the Commoner page and it had a dozen professions, which I then cross-referenced with that page that listed all kinds of professions so that I was sure I was making some profession up and to avoid exactly what is happening now. I was trying to link those commoner professions to the correct profession page or else make the page like with Beggar. Your acting like I just thought to myself what professions and pages should I make up and make people mad. I'll make up Beggar, novelist, tavern owners, and craftsmen because they doesn't exist in WoW. I didn't do that. I cross-referenced and check for NPCs on all those things i made, except novelist which I put two "romance" novels that are in the game as evidence. See what I mean? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, PCJ is the one who made the decision its not my job to step in between him and his decision. Infact, if you missed his first post, appeals must be made to him or User:Kirkburn. I've tried to explain, to best as I know it, but its not my place... I'll leave it to you three to discuss this out.Baggins (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay I will ask him. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Pcj over here

I guess this is the quicker of the three ways since e-mail may be slow. Pcj, the Beggar page is not DNP. The commoner page I never even made up. The Novelist page was made because there is a profession called "novelist" in lore so I made the page so I could list the two romance novels that so far had found and which are different than just regular in-books. All those pages/links I made in the last few hours are real. I found them on the Commoner page, which I did not create, and the Crafts and professions page. There are tavern owners, craftsmen, beggars, etc. in lore and WoW so I wanted to link them up, like I did with tavern owner and wood chopper/Lumberjack, or at least help by making the pages and then putting the NPCs or items into those pages, like I did with Beggar and Novelist. I didn't think to myself and say okay I am going to add bus driver and fireman so I can make everyone mad on wowwiki. I hope you understand. Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going give you some advice. You really should follow his instructions and email this message to him, and/or kirkburn. Also you need to discuss every single reason given for your ban, not just these few. From what I can see in his first post, he didn't just ban you because of these, but banned you for other things as well. Actually he gave a lot of reasons that you haven't responded to. Also you must understand, that even if he changed his mind on what you discussed above, doesn't necessarily mean he will ignore all the other reasons he gave for the ban (i.e. change the above won't necessarily change his ruling). All the other reasons (beyond the ones you discussed) could still be taken into account, and reasons aren't cumulitive, any single reason could be enough to get you the ban.Baggins (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay. I thought he said I could use my talk page to ask him also. I am not sure if he is online. Well, I will e-mail him then. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Baggins mentioned those articles when I asked him what all the problems were with you, and from when I looked at them, the articles you created (or what you submitted to existing articles) were simply definitions of what they were in real-world terms and/or did not make any sense (both of which are against DNP). Also, you were banned because you continued to defy admin's warnings (see above: 1, 2; and similarly in the past, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 10, 11, 12, 13) not to create articles such as these (i.e., NPC pages against the boilerplate), or create one-line articles (i.e., stubs) padded with non-Warcraft-related information, or fail to cite references. --Pcj (T•C) 13:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I hope you read my e-mail to you about the solution Sky came up with. Also, some of those pages Baggins told you about originally, he has since told me that it wasn't my fault, like the Lumberjack/wood chopper page and the Commoner page. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 15:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Having an admin hold your hand to edit does not excuse the fact that you are in violation of policy already. --Pcj (T•C) 15:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We came up with that plan to hold my hand before you banned me. No one had told you yet I guess so I don't think I should have been banned so quick-like. This is especially true when some of the pages, that you told me that you had asked Baggins about, he then later told me that they were not all my fault. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 16:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The ban is not based on what Baggins said, it is based on my assessment of your edits combined with your history. --Pcj (T•C) 16:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I know but some of the assessment on my edits was based on what Baggins had said. You told me you had asked him what pages were the problems. Also, is my history going to affect me forever? If I made a mistake like 3 months ago that counts against me forever? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 16:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Remember, your ban is also because you were ignoring warnings from admins, not to mention what appears to be attempting to pit the admins against each other. None of my assessment of your edits was based on what Baggins said, he did mention that you weren't listening to him and asked me to step in; from that perspective, yes, ignoring and disrespecting Baggins and other admins did bring about your ban more quickly. Double jeopardy is not involved here, the fact of the matter is that you continue to ignore warnings and treat the situation like you can do whatever you want on this wiki. We've asked you several times (at least thirteen separate times as it appears above) to change how you edit but you haven't listened yet. Hopefully this ban will cause you to step back and take a look at what the admins have said. --Pcj (T•C) 16:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not an administrator fight organizer I am telling you. Also, that is like saying I have more power than all the admins somehow. I don't know why Baggins asked you to step in since he knew about the idea we had talked about plus he told me you were the one that banned me it had nothing to do with him. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 16:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Baggins didn't ask me to ban you, he asked me to review your situation and attempt to communicate what he was trying to tell you (but you weren't listening to him). --Pcj (T•C) 16:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay he said to communicate what he was trying to tell me and so your answer was to ban me? That doesn't make sense. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 16:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, you weren't listening. Maybe you will in a month. --Pcj (T•C) 16:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well Baggins had already agreed on the idea. He said you are the one that banned me. So was it you or him or both? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 16:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I banned you for the reasons stated above upon review of your edits and history (as stated above). My review was initially requested by Baggins (as stated above), but he had no part in the ban except to offer his approval of my right to ban you (as stated above) after the fact. --Pcj (T•C) 16:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well then he should not have requested anything because he had just agreed to the previous idea. Why would he agree to something with me then request you look into it? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 16:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You will have to take up that fact with him. In any case, I did review your history and found it worthy of a ban. --Pcj (T•C) 16:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No way. Baggins said to talk to you because the ban was all you. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 16:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The ban was my doing and was only initiated by Baggins's request. If Baggins had not requested and I had looked through your edit and discussion history, I would've come to the same conclusion. Do not continue to attempt to pit administrators against each other; this is your final warning on this issue. --Pcj (T•C) 16:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay so now I have the power to control admins? Interesting. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 16:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hyphens N-dashes

Actually, Rolandius, what you're putting in aren't hyphens, they're em dashes. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought somebody called those hyphens and not em dashes. Well whatever it is officially called, your supposed to put a — in a lot of sentences and not a - or a --. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 00:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Definetly an em dash. Hyphens are used when combining two words, ie, Governor-general or Mrs. Barker-Finch. -_Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That is what I thought. Someone told me I was grammar checking a lot and putting hyphens. I was using — though. Well what I am trying to say is that a lot of times I see a - or even a -- when a — should be used. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 00:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The publishing world is kinda mixed on the issue. RPG actually uses ~~hiphens~~ n-dashes more than it uses em dashes.Baggins (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

We're not talking about source material Baggins, we're talking about the English Language. Unless it's an exact quote, what the RPG uses doesn't matter in the least. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Its not just the RPG, it occurs on the official site as well... As for "english language" actually this goes more into linguistical arguement... Style can vary depending on various authors and publishers... Many things that would be considered grammatically incorrect in one grade school choice of grammar rules (though not necessarily anothers') are ignored for style once authors reach the real world... This is why you'll find authors who use run-on sentences (Ernest Hemingway IIRC)... Yet, authors who break the mold in linguistic grammatical use, are often considered some of the greatest in english authors... Sure its a paradox... But its something I learned in my linguistic classes that language is far more fluid than what one grade school language course might tell you is mandatory...

Its actually somewhat funny that teachers make students read works by famous authors, yet, those authors style may break the rules of accepted grammar. So paradox between how one writes and others write exists. Yet, the author isn't considered to be grammatically incorrect, since he or she is famous, and thus allowed to ahve a different style due to artistic differences.

Also since going to university I've found that various formating and style guides such as MLA, APA, or Boston styles may differ on citation and grammar rules... To say there is a single set of "english language" rules is sort of one of the great misleading bits of elementary and high school education.Baggins (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In any case, hyphens or em dashes are fine. I don't see a reason not to change hyphens to em dashes when appropriate - but I wouldn't say either way is "better" for the purposes of the website. Same way US and British English are fine, but can be switched (GB-->US) when appropriate. Kirkburn talk contr 01:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but in those same classes, if the teacher or professor saw something and corrected it, I don't think you can say "but Ernest Hemingway did it". When you are a famous author, then you can write run-on sentences all you like. We should try to stay as grammaticaly correct as we can. With some areas though, we might run into a situation where either way is okay. In that case, someone telling the other person that they changed the sentence just because of one symbol is crazy. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Style can also vary by region, one grade school may tell you to use emdashes another may tell you to use regular ~~dashes~~ n-dash. In my experience I've seen different english books by different publishers sometimes give conflicting "grammar" advice between each other. This probably has to do with the fact that there are several different english dialects with their own types of "grammar".Baggins (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've resurrected this old discussion to point out something Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Em_dash#En_dash_versus_em_dash;) explained about style of n-dashes (the hyphen like dashes often used in the Warcraft Books) verses m-dashes. It does point out that was right that grammar rules vary by different editors and books of style. IT shows that grammar rules can vary from one grammar rule book to another and from region to region.

=== En dash versus em dash ===

The en dash is half the width of the em dash. The width of the en dash was originally the width of the typeset lowercase letter 'n', while the width of the em dash was the width of an uppercase 'M'—hence the names. A more correct definition of the em width is the point size of the currently used font, since the M character does not occupy an exact square in many fonts.^[1]

Traditionally an em dash—like so—or a spaced em dash — like so — has been used for a dash in running text. The Elements of Typographic Style recommends the more concise spaced en dash – like so – and argues that the length and visual magnitude of an em dash "belongs to the padded and corseted aesthetic of Victorian typography." The spaced en dash is also the house style for certain major publishers (Penguin, Cambridge University Press, and Routledge among them). However, some longstanding typographical guides such as The Chicago Manual of Style still recommend unspaced em dashes for this purpose. The Oxford Guide to Style (2002, section 5.10.10) acknowledges that this style is used by "other British publishers", but observes that Oxford University Press (OUP) does not use it. In practice, there is little consensus, and it is a matter of personal or house taste.

The en dash (always with spaces, in running text) and the spaced em dash both have a certain technical advantage over the unspaced em dash. In most typesetting and most word processing, the spacing between words is expected to be variable, so there can be full justification. Alone among punctuation that marks pauses or logical relations in text, the unspaced em dash disables this for the words between which it falls. The effect can be uneven spacing in the text.

En dashes are often preferred to em dashes when text is set in narrow columns (as in newspapers and similar publications).

The spaced em dash risks introducing excessive separation of words: it is already long, and the spaces increase the separation. In full justification, the adjacent spaces may be stretched, and the separation of words is further exaggerated.

Baggins (talk) 08:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay could we get a distilled version? I also think I have read that depending on your computer/keyboard you might not have all the different varieties. Luckily, wowwiki has two types of inserts below mostly commonly used. Wikipedia says that there are four common types of dashes ( ‒, –, —, ― ) and two common types of hyphens ( -, ‐ ) so it can get confusing. Especially if you want to count the uncommon types. Now tell me if this is right or wrong or if it goes either way. I have been editing like so. I use the first "insert" below on wowwiki (–) with no spaces for hyphens and I use the second insert ( — ) with spaces for em dashes. I will now write a few sentences to illustrate this:

My favorite levels in WoW were levels 65-70. (correct way?) <---- I used the first insert, the hyphen.
My favorite levels in WoW were levels 65 - 70. (wrong way?) <---- I used the first insert, the hyphen.
My favorite class in WoW — don't get me wrong they all are good — is the Paladin. (correct way?) <---- I used the second insert, the em dash.
My favorite class in WoW—don't get me wrong they all are good—is the Paladin. (wrong way?) <---- I used the second insert, the em dash.

Now I am not including quotes from sources since they could vary, I am just talking about user edits. I have seen everything from a (— ) or a ( —) used to a (--) or a ( -- ) used, I think, incorrectly. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 09:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'd say I fall into the group that prefers n-dashes over m-dashes. As that was what I was taught in school. I prefer the spaced n-dash over closed.

I can understand where your coming from as you were taught the em-dash method instead. I rather don't like the look of closed em-dashes.

Hyphenated things? I prefer closed.

I agree that double dashes(the short variety) or minus signs should be avoided altogether. Although personally I can't see much of a difference between the long hyphen (whatever the second hyphen is called) and a n-dash.

I can understand where the problem gets worse based on limits to keyboards/computers though. The average joe probably doesn't even know ascii commands.Baggins (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay my last paragraph was just cloned by you. Yeah, I don't even think I can make the en dash with my keyboard. Wikipedia says on Macs you use option-shift-hyphen for em dashes (—). That works. Then it says use option-hyphen for en dashes (–). That doesn't work it just makes a hyphen again for me. I think I can use the minus symbol Insert below on wowiki though to sort of look like a en dash (−). For some reason the minus symbol on my keyboard comes out as a hyphen (-) but the minus symbol below looks like (−). Well I guess I learn something new everyday. I hope Pcj reads my e-mail soon so I can figure out what is going on. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 10:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm yes the long minus sign does look like an n-dash.Baggins (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. Typing option-hyphen (–) does make a en dash only after I hit "save page". Interesting. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 10:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Operator could I get Baggins

Okay Baggins if you are out there. Pcj has transfered me to you. Why did you tell him to "look into the problem" when we had already talked about it and it was all done earlier? Also, you told me the ban had nothing to do with you and that Pcj had just decided to ban me all by himself. Rolandius (talk - contr) 16:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did try to discuss this with him, while we were discussing it in here last night. I even told him Begger wasn't a problem except that you didn't clearly show that it was an in-game npc (remember you need to use {{Stub/NPC}} anytime you make an npc stub). You can't expect people to understand that it is a valid article if you don't point out in the first place. Alternatively, you should have been more specific giving out the details of the NPC, its character levels for example, so that people are clear that it was a mob.

I let him know that commoner by itself was not a problem. However, we did discuss that linking generic titles and then making "stubs" from the is a problem (the warning I gave in edit summery before he banned you). As Ragestorm suggested in his talk page which you ignored, you should have asked before creating such pages, "The only recommendations I have are getting a second opinion when starting new articles". You should have gotten a second opinion before you started the new article so that everything was clear from the start.

You know you for one make alot of boneheaded mistakes (too many) & need to be more careful. You wonder why you are confused all the time? Well its probably because you leave us confused alot of the time. I've had to come back and fix alot of things you left unfinished. You need to use the correct templates dependent on what you are making. Also thank you for pointing out coobra's generic page creation. We shouldn't have to repeatedly warn you about this.

Also we shouldn't have to warn you that if you create a page and put something on the page from any source you need to put down the citation. Failing to put down the citation is a violation. A citation isn't a sure method that your article will be accepted or allowed, but allows the admins and book keeper the ability to check up on the source see how valid or relevent the reference really is in comparison to a wide range of sources (yes we cross reference information) and clean things up. Leaving out citations is a repeated offense and is not tolerated. We have banned people in the past for this repeated offense alone. Like I said before, yes you did put up the RPG template, but that was not an excuse for the lack of a real citation. This is not an appeal to common practice, it is our policy.

Yes, you are right Coobra has made some questionable pages, and didn't even disambig them correctly (he will get a warnign for that). However, I have warned you in the past that "appeal to common practice" is a fallacy and will not be used in support of your personal mistakes. Two wrongs do make a right. Even if others do it doesn't mean you will get off from doing it. But thanks for pointing out another person who has done it, the people you have tattled on will now be taken into consideration.

Finally, since PCJ banned you. There isn't much I can do about it (I'm not going to reduce the time of the ban, I gave you that mercy last time). But like I said yesterday you have a long list of mistakes, and he decided it was a reason to ban you. I might have shown you mercy (perhaps too much) by holding off banning you much earlier (believe me I thought about it). Pcj decided you had made too many "mistakes" and violations. Remember even if a violation is made by accident it still is a violation, and they can stack up.

Also, let me warn you that you have bewildered nearly every single person on the admin staff at this point. Except for perhaps Sky. In discussions they have all pretty much agreed that you were on your way to a ban, and that they were all thinkingo of banning you. Ragestorm and I have given some restraint and held back. He was going to leave you in the hands of one of the head administration, as he didn't want to act himself.

Since quite a few people were are in agreement that you have made too many ban worthy offenses, I will not interfere. I agree with them. I was too lenient, I showed too much mercy. Frankly the usual method for problem users who make mistakes too much (yes, m1330/kesmana made many of the same mistakes as you, you never saw the overall history about him) is that if they can't be corrected, and repeated similar kinds of mistakes even after being told to be careful ultimately get banned. He started out very much like you, and we gave him alot of mercy, and he got banned several times. He's now cooling off for a year. If he comes back and starts up again, he will be banned permanetly. This isn't hatred against the person, we just can't let people get away with repeated offenses. His sockpuppet was only the latest in his line of offenses. We have probably shown you more mercy that the average person. We have banned people for less... You are welcome to look through the archives of the violtion list for a huge number of reasons we ban people.

Btw, verbally attacking another user yesterday by accusing them of being someone else over your created speculation, should have given you an instant ban... Flaming someone & making accusations, because you disagreed, is one of the top offenses, and you should have known better. We have also told you in the past to be careful about not entitling something based on assumptions. Calling it a "mistake" doesn't quite cut it. Saying I made a mistake is not a valid excuse for repetive practice. Remember someone can only cry wolf so many times...

Feel free to discuss your position with Kirkburn if you like. But I have said my peace. There will be no more arguements with you.-Baggins (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That is silly coming from you who refuses to stop argueing. The point is yesterday we resolved this and I thought the problem was solved. Instead of talking to Sky like you agreed to you went to Pcj and told him to "look into this". What Pcj then did was look at Beggar, Lumberjack, and some other pages and thought okay he made this all up and counted it against me when Beggar was a real page and some other I never even created in the first place. What are you talking about citations? I have cited the stuff I put on the page. You have taken cited material and just made it disappear. I remember Kirkburn saying that just because a cited material is contradicted doesn't mean it disappears like it never existed. You point it out on the page. I am pretty sure you know this. Also, your telling me to cite stuff that is obvious like an image. I had the image of the NPC Beggar from WoW on there. How much more citation can you get. I even linked the commoner page so people could see that there are also beggars in the RPG. Where in wowwiki does it say "when creating a page you must 100% finish it". That is why people can edit so that others can add onto a page additional information. Also, I have never said anything about Coobra. I haven't even said his name once until now and you are coming out with "Yes, you are right Coobra has made some questionable pages, and didn't even disambig them correctly (he will get a warnign for that)." That is you talking Baggins not me. I did not tattle on anyone. It looks like your the one pitting people against each other now. First you agree with a solution, then you tell Pcj to go look into it so your not the one seen as doing anything. Now your saying I said all this stuff about Coobra. And about your famous fallacies, I never said hey Coobra did something why can't I? If you read my talk page people will see the stories you are making up. I said I never made some pages that you had accused me of making. Now your taking that and saying, "okay you didn't make those pages up but now Coobra made it so he is in trouble thanks to you". What is that all about? I think you know better than to do that. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to say anymore after this, but I donh't what what your talking about but I didn't agree to anything with sky. I guess I did glance over sky's message early on, but I Didn't really look at until you to after you brought it up. Yes while he did type it out in confidence to both ragestorm and I... I never actually posted any agreement in the thread. I haven't even decided if I agree or not on that issue. As for banning you it was PCJ decision, not mine. All I did was discuss the issue of your edits and page creations with with him.Baggins (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I didn't bring it up to you. You already knew about it. I replied on Ragestorm's talk page "okay sounds good". You argued more on Ragestorm's page and I fianlly said "ok this seems to be over lets go contribute to wowwiki". You did agree with it as you say above on my talk page when I asked why Pcj had banned me. You told me he didn't know about what Sky, you, Ragestorm, and I had been talking about so you cannot get in the middle and I should talk to Pcj. I found out later that you actually told Pcj to "look into it". Interesting. Now today I read about how I somehow told you about Coobra and who knows who else's entries being bad or something. You make up good stories Baggins. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I see Baggins is still talking badly about me he just can't stop. I am not even able to edit and yet he keeps padding the violation list with things he thinks up. What is this story of you being my mentor? Another great story from Baggins. And that user yesterday attacked me. He said Thrall was not in the Arathi Highlands during Warcraft III, that he starts in Kalimdor. He asked me how do I know Thrall is in the Arathi Highlands? I told him well by the look of the demo it says Thrall starts in the Arathi Highlands. Baggins then told me it is my fault that I didn't direct the user to the Exodus of the Horde part of the game. I told Baggins that the Exodus of the Horde is on the same page just one or two paragraphs below. The demo also led me to believe that the orc in the starting screen is Thrall since he has chains on his hands and you hit "play" and then your in the Arathi Highlands as Thrall. It is only the demo you can't see every campaign. That user then attacked me saying it was not Thrall because the rocks and soil are wrong and that it looks the Barrens, Kalimdor. Of course Baggins went to the violation list to add more stuff about me. When I asked why everytime I post something asking a question he adds more to the violation list he replied that he doesn't...then went to the violation list again. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, cut it out. This is WW:DNP, further offenses will lengthen your ban and I will protect your talk page so you can't edit it. --Pcj (T•C) 03:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay tell Baggins about DNP then. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Your ban has been lengthened to 3 months for attempting to play admins against each other, as I warned you above. --Pcj (T•C) 03:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay go ahead make up stories willy nilly. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I have been vaguely following this; no, it is not going to change anything. You are about the only user we have ever had who has required the input of almost every single active sysop on the wiki. They keep giving you advice, you keep trying rebuttals for it all. At some point you have to realise the admins are the ones who have been around longest, and best know how the wiki runs. I trust them - you should, too. Of course, everyone should get constructive criticism if needed ... that being said, when I keep hearing one person complaining about the admins, I am inclined to suggest that it is not the admins at fault. Kirkburn talk contr 03:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I know they have been around a long time that is why I have been trying to talk about it and yesterday a solution was thought of. After agreeing with it though, it was almost immediately broken. How can I trust some of them now after stories are just made up about me and agreements voided? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As I have been asked, I am fine with the idea of Sky mentoring you. Edit: noting the protection of this page, the admins will have an off wiki discussion about the situation. Kirkburn talk contr 12:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The new deal

Here's what we (the admins) have worked out. Your ban will be reduced to the original month, and after that you will be on strict probation for at least the two months after (the remainder of your current 3 month ban), under the careful tutelage of User:Sky2042. You'll have to work with him on what you should and shouldn't do, how you should edit, etc. However, the rest of the admins will continue to watch you, and will alert Sky if there's any problems. Just beware the dark side of editing, and your re-training should go well.

While you're banned and can't edit, you might want to take the time to read the WoWWiki policies in order to familiarize yourself better with them.

I am going to release the protection on your talk page, but don't spend a lot of time editing it except to respond to things said here. You're still banned, and if I see too much non-reply editing going on I will protect the page again. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 19:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay I will read them. I guess my user page counts as something I cannot edit? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Dark Iron Forge

I saw yesterday that someone mentioned in the "edit summary" of their edit that Rolandius, that is me, had put "Dark Iron Forge" in the Elemental Plane page. I never put that, and I think it was added before I even joined WoWWiki. Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I checked your edit history. Yes doesn't look like you added that. Don't worry.Baggins (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Strangely enough it looks like something I must have accidently copied over from somewhere else when I copied the list into the page. Anycase its removed now, so it shouldn't be misleading to anyone at this point.Baggins (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know you could edit the "edit summary" afterwards if you put something in you later don't want in there. Well it is probably copied over like you said from a previous edit you might have done of the same page. It might have been some other stuff I had put into the page? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hillsbrad maps

I saw this map which illustrates Hillsbrad's location by combining two maps, one from the orc campaign and one from the human campaign.[1] Shouldn't the orc campaign map from Attack_on_Zul'dare be used too? Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Hillsbrad map that combines the two maps, is to show that there is a certain grove of trees that appears in both maps, although the scale is different in the two maps.

Unfortunately the Attack on Zul'dare while known to occur in the Channel Islands region, the map shows completely different shaped islands from the other map. None of the islands quite match up to any elements on either of the other two maps. So there is no way to point out where it is exactly in relation to the other maps, even if you changed its scale. It doesn't quite match up with any specific elements in the map. Because of this there is no way to know exactly where its located in relation to the mainland.Baggins (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Although the maps both show those grove of trees, it could go either way. In some ways it looks they match on the left side, but then again the right side of the two maps do not match up even with the scaling fixed. Also, how could the orcs start right on top of Hillsbrad in one mission, while in another mission it is Hillsbrad on that same spot. The top map would have to be elsewhere.

The Attack on Zul'dare map takes place at Hillsbrad I believe. It looks to me like a zoomed-in portion of the the bottom part of Hillsbrad. Those islands that don't match up are just too small to be shown on the larger map. When zoomed-in to show the Attack on Zul'dare area, you can then see more small islands that is all I think. Although you could say that the map is not of Hillsbrad and the relation to the mainland is unknown, it does say in the mission briefing that you, number one, are attacking an orc base south-east of Hillsbrad and, number two, are building transports in order to begin crossing the channel. If that map shows you somewhere in the channel islands already then you would have to wonder, number one, how did you get to the island if your mission is to build transports to cross the channel in the first place and, number two, why would they say the orc base is south-east of Hillsbrad if your not going to be starting at Hillsbrad but instead on some island? Your starting area is north-west of the orc base so it would seem to be a part of Hillsbrad. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 11:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In Attack on Hillsbrad, you leave from an island, to attack the coastal township of Hillsbrad. In Raid at Hillsbrad you attack the township from the grove. Both maps are said to take place in the "township of Hillsbrad", see official strategy guide for more details. They have to be near each other, and the township is established to be a coastal town. In anycase that map is in the speculation section.Baggins (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

user:Rolandius/Mentor

Go go go. I set up an initial template for you. --Sky (t · c · w) 05:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay let me get my folder of ideas that I have come up with out. It may take awhile since it weighs many tons. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 07:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Remember to contact me, if you have any questions. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11:32 AM PST 26 Sep 2008

It is good to be back. LOL Thanks. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, Rolandius :D I see you're being much more productive this time around, adding much-needed quotes from manuals and fixing other stuff. Good to see you're back in action. Just make sure you refrain from using your 'self edit' and 'new info' tags and you'll be fine ;) Dragola (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

right, "self edit" and "new info" is a bit too vague.Baggins (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay I will try to expand on those. When I put "self edit" it usually means I accidently put something myself, like maybe spelling orc as orcc, and then I fixed it right away. New info I found from the pull down menu so I thought that it was okay, but I guess I will add more info. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a little checkbox for "minor edits", like fixing a spelling mistake. Never used it to see what it does though.Baggins (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Red links

Please avoid making links to anything that doesn't have an article yet. Also make sure that if there is going to be an article make sure its relevant and has enough material to fill it out. If the limits to information is a sentence, but you feel that there is something important about it, then interlink to a wikipedia article on the subject.Baggins (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean that it is okay if I remove red links that I find on pages? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If its a red link to an NPC leave it. If its a redlink to a generic profession. Probably best to remove it.Baggins (talk) 05:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Okie dokie. Sometimes I see red links in a page and I never thought of removing them. The red links I have seen range from a book author's name to items. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ingame items should be red. They will and should have an article infact you might choose to put up the stub/articles, and use the laurlybot template to request an article. if its a generic non-ingame item that can't possible have a releveant article, then it probably shouldn't be linked. Author names are certain worthy of having articles, so red links are ok.Baggins (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course this ties into avoid making articles for every RPG item... We don't want to plagiarize the entire book of M&M, and MM&M :p...Baggins (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay so occupations and articles of non in-game items that cannot possibly have information are okay to remove. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any situation in which we could make pages for RPG items? I am guessing RPG items that also exist in WoW are okay if they are not on WoWWiki yet? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If the item has a picture in the rpg, then it stands out. Those can make good articles. If the item is an item in WoW MMO, then add the lore to the wow item page, it enhances the article. If the item is incredibly important to the point that it has a connection to relevent characters from the games, then it might be worth adding an article. I'd suggest asking in your mentor page before hand though.Baggins (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay I will. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Languages

Yes, there are various groups, or organizations that might know a particular language. That info is best put in the language sections of the individual race if it is truly relevant. The language pages themselves should be mainly devote to the main race that developed and uses the language.Baggins (talk)

What if it is only "a few corrupt orcs" or "a few night elves"? Do we write the language in the infobox and then note that is it "a few" of that race that know the language? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If its a few, its probably not exactly relevant. Any individuals can learn any language. The infobox shows the ones the RPG points out as being the main primary and secondary languages they are more likely to learn.Baggins (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I am not sure then. This wasn't the race infobox but it was in the Languages of Azeroth infobox in two different sources. What I found said that some languages are "restricted". That is why the RPG put it in there so that you know the "typical speaker" of Eredun are Demons and a few corrupted orcs and the "typical speaker" of Draconic are Dragons and a few night elves. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That thing is more of a suggestion box anyways. The real detailed language stuff in in the individual race pages.Baggins (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay. They made it sound so official with the whole "Languages of Azeroth" table they had in the RPGs. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 07:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, its true info, it doesn't contradict anything, see cycle of Hatred (for corrupt erudun speaking orcs). Dragonsworn are often night elves, and they speak draconic. Its just that few, isn't as relevant as "most" of the race speaking the language. There are alot of languages that "few" of any race might speak :p... For example a "few" humans speak eredun as well (in Cycle of Hatred). But its a very minor detail in comparison.Baggins (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay. That is why I thought it would fit better in the language pages. Oh well a few isn't really significant anyways. I am sure there are a few human cult members that know Eredun out there also. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 09:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Template languages

Putting "sure" languages down on the half-breed templates is somewhat questionable.

1. They are templates put on top of the main half-race. (half-orc, half-elf, half-ogre). Therefore the language may follow the main half-race's language, with minor change change of "primary language" if stated. But no changes to secondary languages. This is an very strong possibility I think.

2. there is the rule that racial blood follows certain racial skills of a certain race. This could include language skills, "possibly". This would assume that the secondary language skills change. But its not stated specifically.

3. Assumption that the language follows the "human" parent (for half-elven varients, and half-human half-ogre), or orc for the half-ogre magi... I think this third idea is the least likely.

Now, I'd personally suggest probably just not touching on secondary languages unless we have a better idea, from an actual RPG player what the rules mean exactly in english. Since half-blood elves don't exactly exist yet, its a little less misleading. As we don't know how they will be exactly.

But half-human half-ogres, and half-ogre magi which might exist presently its very misleading. Baggins (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I just went with what the RPG said which was "if you want to play as a 'race name' then you should play it as a 'race name'" or sometimes the RPG says "if you want to play as a 'race name' then you should play it as a 'race name' with these skills different". For the half-human half-ogre, it says "a half-human half-ogre is considered a human and an ogre". For the half-ogre magi, it says "Half-ogres are considered ogres for spells and effects, however, and thus they qualify for the ogre mage template". Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the way those are worded it could be interpreted different ways. Languages have nothing to do with spells, and they aren't exactly "effects". Effects actually come from how a spell will work on the individual as far as I know. Nothing to do with languages. Again different half-ogres but all based on the main half-ogre rule system, but with slight changes to certain aspects of the rule.

Also a template is something put on top of another race. So half-ogre magi would be the regular half-ogre with half-ogre magi template put on top of it. Thus it would be a mix of both sets of rules. Kinda dangerous to interpret the non ability stuff like languages, when it could be the regular half-ogre language rules. The spells and effects are only going to be things affected by various spells and feats, I.E. combat abilities (as far as I understand the rules).

AS for half-human half-ogre, again its "special abilities and effects, that a half-ogre magi and half-ogres are considere a human and an ogre". This has nothign to do with the language, it has to do with how spells and combat abilities interact with the character if used on the character. Additionally the ogre mage template is an optional rule, "if the gm allows it". Which means not all half-ogre magi would have it.

The idea here is to try not to take the information out of context. It has a specific purposes for the RPG game mechanics, and has little to nothing to do with lore.

Honestly I'd say avoid touching the game mechanic portions of the sourcebooks, unless you have knowledge of what it means.Baggins (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Further, you missed the fact that even regular half elves, and half-ogves have a similar rule;

"Elven Blood: For all special abilities and effects, a half-elf is considered both a high elf and a human." racial ability.

"Mixed Blood: For all special abilities and effects, a half-ogre is considered both an ogre and an orc.

It has nothing to do with languages section as you can see.Baggins (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I will try to leave it alone like you said. I thought it meant language also, but I don't know enough about "effects", "racial ability", etc. since I don't actually "RPG". I like reading/knowing about it though. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Brann

Quick note- when referring to something Brann is talking about, please refer to him as Brann Bronzebeard (full name and link). While most of our readership knows who he is, it flows better (OK, not quite the right term, but I hop you get the idea) this way. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I will do that. I got used to just calling him Brann too much. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You can keep doing it later in the paragraph or article, just check to see if he's mentioned earlier in the article. If he is, you can call him Brann or Bronzebeard without a link. If it's the first time, do the full one. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay cool. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Source templates

Avoid using more than one per article. They look rather unpressional stacked, or scattered throughout an article. Either use the multisource one, or use whichever is the primary source of information.Baggins (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize we had a multisource template. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it needs a better icon to make it stand out.Baggins (talk) 04:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it new or did I just miss it? I have never seen this template before on pages. I have only seen the method I used where users have put in various templates to divide the page's information. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have to do this...

You have been resorting to edit wars, removing cited information (maraudon) that was added from Lands of Conflict, etc. We have told you not to remove information if it is properly cited, and relevant. You have been given warnings... You choose to just ignore them and argue... I will not be argueing with you from now on, I will not have my time wasted. I'll just take actions. If you choose to argue, then you will be ignored. I even warned you about the purpose of the "minor settlement" section to which you ignored it and continued to remove the info.

Due to the fact that you haven't been listening, then the next course of action is to put you on the next step after your previous punishment. I believe you were at one month ban previously. This will put you at the next option, the three month ban. Unless someone above me believes you diserve more.Baggins (talk) 07:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything you said about me you have been doing for days now actually to me. You revert everything I did tonight, you removed cited material, you are constantly arguing even after I said I was not putting anything on WoWWiki about that subject, you are making up information not in the sources yet you ignore the sources when I put them, you are calling things minor settlements when in the RPG they are not called minor settlements or in some cases don't even give us a population number, you are taking some things under Settlements and Sites and ignoring the Sites half of it, you are attributing information that is speculation and saying it is from the sources, you ignored at least 5 RPGs and counting of sources, and dozens of other examples. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 09:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Rolandius, but there are times where a user warned by admins multiple times on multiple actions either has to admit he is wrong, or comply to the "An admin's word is final" rule.

The community accepted to give you another chance, you didn't take it. Your loss I'm afraid. User:Adys/Sig 09:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Read above. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 09:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You read above. An admin's word is final - if you cannot accept everything else, that's all it comes down to.

I suggest you don't troll your talk page before we remove you the right to edit it aswell. Good night. User:Adys/Sig 09:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant read my entry above. Those things I listed he did. This is my talk page which lets me respond so I am not sure what you mean. Who smiles when they ban someone? I guess it is a funny thing for him. If you look at my edits 90% are reverted by only one person. My Mentor page which was supposed to be me putting things and Sky seeing if they are revelent became a place for Baggins to find me and argue with me again. Makes you think. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 09:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't mix up removal of info due to "relevancy" issues as removing cited info. If you had taken the time to create valid topics (not just some interpretation based on a random word in an article), or not put up disjointed info (random comment that doesn't fit into the flow of the subject), then they would likely stayed. However, you seemed to overlook an important point. We don't have to include every single reference to the subject, especially ones poorly paraphrased. Sometimes its better to just stick with the general overview of the topic being discussed. Its not about the quantity its about the quality. You can continue to argue, or make accusations about me based on your own fallacious arguements, but this may just lead to the permanent ban. I'm not going to play your games anymore...Baggins (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I was given the go-ahead to make those pages. I didn't make them without consultation. All you do is talk about fallacious this and fallacious that. You are the one that decided to go on my Mentor page and argue with me as a admin even mentioned to you twice. I am not on your user page arguing with you. You are making up things about me. Here is an example that you put on the Violations List. "suggesting that one of his page ideas will be groundbreaking, only for it to be a minimal lore stub". What does that even mean? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 10:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Giving the go ahead and breaking policies to do it still doesn't get you off the hook. Especially if its a bad quaity article, or misleading.Baggins (talk) 10:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I will not allow this without diffs. He is unblocked until such time you can reproduce them. Even if you can produce them, it will be after my judgment and not yours. While both you and I are involved in this, I believe that the blocking administrator should have been both uninvolved and not solicited without examples of diffs that were not taken out of context. We do not block for "bad quality article"s, we fix them. If he broke the rules, let's see where he did so. Rolandius is unblocked for now. I will also consider Adys involved here. --Sky (t · c · w) 16:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sky, those decisions have been discussed beforehand and taken without your consentement being required. Sorry to say, but for what I've seen you have not been doing a good job at mentoring. User:Adys/Sig 17:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Why am I blocked for a year now? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The admins are currently discussing it. I apologize for the confusing, multifaceted way in which this situation is being handled. --Pcj (T•C) 01:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I was just wondering because I just logged on and saw that I was unbanned, rebanned, and banned for an extra year all in the span of 12 hours while I was offline. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Rolandius has been unblocked and changed to a "suspect" in WW:V. Please put explanations with diffs (besides the Maraudon edit which I'm aware of) for blocking Rolandius on my talk page. Requests to discuss on IRC are not acceptable. If I do not see any explanations, I will keep unblocking Rolandius. Unlike most admins, my consent is required (bureaucrat > sysop) and I will only defer to Kirkburn or Wikia personnel. I agree with Sky and I don't want to see any subgroup of admins trying to enforce blocks that resemble actions based on personal grudges more than a reasoned approach and benefit of the doubt. Most of the reasons for ban/block are generally petty.

Up to now, I've tried to give various parties (Baggins, Adys and Pcj, mostly) the benefit of the doubt. If I seem to be giving Rolandius special treatment, I am, because I think WoWWiki would be much worse off with him perma-banned than restrained.

On the other side of the coin, Rolandius has made some serious errors in judgement. However, he has also been subjected to far more oversight and restriction than any other user who has contributed so much to WoWWiki.

For now various parties need to go to their respective corners and "cool off" for a bit (this means you too, Rolandius; please restrict changes to User:Rolandius/Mentor until this situation is settled). --

Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:20 AM PST 6 Oct 2008

Thank you for letting us know in advance and discussing your actions with the admin team, Fandyllic. This is the most stupid and fucked up decision I've seen done by you.

I'm out of this affair, you guys sort it out yourselves. User:Adys/Sig 01:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fandy, the involved admins are discussing it. --Pcj (T•C) 01:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You know you don't have to reblock me every day. I am not going to be editing these pages for awhile. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Rolandius, I am sorry it is coming to this - but the situation you have placed us in, knowingly or unknowingly, is a problem. You aren't a "vandal" per se, but you are making some people's lives very difficult. If you have a problem with an admin - contact them, and possibly one other if they cannot help you. Do not email every admin hoping for a different answer. This pisses us off, and can get us annoyed at each other. We don't like that.

Admins make decisions for the good of the wiki - you have to live with them. I have never in the life of this wiki seen anyone manage to stir up so much trouble in such a short period of time. Kirkburn talk contr 02:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't e-mailed every admin. I have talked to 1 or 2 admins. A lot of things are getting exagerrated over here. 1 or 2 admins is not "every" admin. Also, my e-mail is blocked on here so I couldn't really e-mail "every" admin even if I wanted to. If people have to exagerrate reasons to block me then I probably should not be blocked in the first place. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I see more was stuff was added to my violation list about Elwynn Forest. The sources do not give us information on Westridge's population. In fact, they don't even list it under Sites and Settlements in the Elwynn Forest section. It belongs under the "maps and subregions" section of the page not "minor settlements", unless some method has changed, seeing the examples of other pages. Also, there is high chance that Westridge is supposed to be in fact Westbrook Garrison. If you look at the LoC map, there is a Westridge G. on the map where Westbrook Garrison is currently. A change may have occured where Westridge G. on the map became Westbrook G. They did not edit the Westridge out of the source in time or in error, in which it was mentioned only twice anyways. This has occured before in lore with Westfall's various names for instance. This may have been the Westridge they meant in LoC since they mention Westridge having a good place to drink. Under the Elwynn Forest section, they mention Westbrook Garrison under Sites and Settlements, with a population, and the people having a great time drinking ale. Westridge=Westridge G.=Westbrook G. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "my e-mail is blocked on here so I couldn't really e-mail "every" admin even if I wanted to" ... look, we aren't stupid. That setting has not always been on, and I kept getting reports of you emailing people, and I'm not inclinded to disbelieve them because you say "I have talked to 1 or 2 admins". Indeed, Baggins turned it on you would stop pestering him, I have received emails from you, so has Fandyllic. That's more than two already. It stops now.

The infoboxes use RPG info. This does not mean they exclusively use RPG info. I cannot imagine how many times Baggins has tried to put this across. Edit warring with him over isn't going to help. Kirkburn talk contr 02:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the truth. I have no idea what you heard but you should demand proof. I am talking about these past 2 weeks. This instance of banning and not in the last year. I have only e-mailed 1 or 2 admins. I am not talking about the last time I was banned or anything. I haven't emailed you in at least 1-2 months. Last time I e-mailed Baggins was 1-2 weeks ago during the week before I was even on WoWWiki yet from my last ban. We were talking about Warcraft II maps back then so I don't know where you got the "bothering Baggins" part from that or "turned on block e-mail due to lots of e-mail". Lots of exagerration from people it looks like. Instead of banning me and telling my cryptic replies, why doesn't someone just say "The infoboxes use RPG info. This does not mean they exclusively use RPG info." Instead I get that the infoboxes are based on the RPG. Then it changes to no it is not based on the RPG. Now it is based on the RPG but not exclusively. Of course that still does not explain how a settlement like Westridge that has no info on population or even on Westridge itself really gets turned into a minor settlement. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I found my last e-mails to Baggins and yourself. Last time I e-mailed Baggins I believe was Sept. 24 and was a couple of days before I was even back from my last ban. So that would be 2 weeks ago. The last e-mail I sent you I believe was Aug. 25 and so that would be 7 weeks ago almost. I don't know how that is called "bothering" people with "lots of e-mails" or what that has to do with blocking my e-mail on here. I did not e-mail Baggins for almost 2 weeks before my e-mail on here was blocked so why would I e-mail him all of a sudden now? Also, I haven't e-mailed you in 7 weeks so why would I have to have my e-mail blocked if I am not even bothering anyone? I have only talked to 2 admins lately. Sky was my Mentor and we are supposed to be e-mailing each other about my Mentor page. So like I said I have talked to 1-2 admins recently and I have proof which it looks like my detractors do not. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am a Suspect on the violation list yet I am still blocked. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If anyone wants to hear my side of the story or ask me questions I am here and with proof. I was led to believe that this Mentor page was something where Sky checks to see if my ideas were relevant or not. If they were relevant he said ok. If they weren't relevant he said nope. Suddenly it turned into a place for some people to argue with me and not help with something positive. If people would have watched the Mentor page and stopped it then this would never have happened. I don't know if anyone noticed but I was barely back from my last ban for about a week when I got banned again. Sort of quick don't you think? Also, Kirkburn you said "If you have a problem with an admin - contact them" which then turns into "Baggins turned it on you would stop pestering him" as if I have e-mailed every day for the past 2 weeks. Which one is it? If I am told to contact an admin and it is going to be used against me then why tell me to contact the admin in the first place? Regardless, if you read my post above I have stated when I last e-mailed Baggins and yourself in order for you to see that I was not recently bothering anyone and therefore no reasoning for him to block my e-mail on here. I am sure people on WoWWiki have e-mailed more than 2 admins if your counting the past 6 months. The core of the problem is that some people do not like anyone for any reason touching their edits no matter if they are correct or not. I touched some edits and then I was banned. A rule should be made that admins' edits may not be touched no matter if wrong or right so that someone else does not get banned in the future like I have been many times. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Far Seer Corhuk?

I think Farseer Corhuk is the correct name of this NPC. The name of the page should be the name of the NPC in the game. Some NPCs are named Far Seer while others are named Farseer. I am not sure if Farseers are the same as Far Seers in lore but the page should reflect the NPC's name which in this case is Farseer Corhuk. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable Farseers

Here are some notable Farseers someone could add to the article. Farseer Corhuk, Farseer Kurkush, and Farseer Margadesh. Rolandius (talk - contr) 04:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Calender

I think there should be a page made that has something to do with calenders/measure of time. I see some people wondering about dates on WoWWiki_talk:Warcraft_pump. As for calenders, we could put information about the calender used around the time of the First War, the calender used now, and the mysterious BTFT and ATFT dates used in Horatio Montgomery, M.D.'s memorial. We could also throw in the use of "Selune - Spring" in the Journal of Brann. I am not sure if the festivals that some people celebrate for the different seasons and times of the year would count as holidays or this page. Finally, we could put in the fact that dwarves did not always use the 24 hour clock once upon a time. They used a 30 hour day. Also, Ironforge does not run on a schedule like many cities due to it being underground, hence no sun. It is quite dark in Ironforge actually as they keep the lights dim. Ironforge runs, starting at midnight, on three 8 hour-shifts marked by a loud whistle. In the game, I believe they just use that hourly horn. A few exceptions to the shift schedule exist though like police. Although Ironforge runs all night and day, the work output is about the same as the other cities that use the schedule in which they are busy during the day and closed at night. As you can see the Alliance uses the sun as the mark between night and day. The Orcs use cycles to measure their years. They plan many things according to the cycle, from the timing of the naming of their children to measuring the time between a new moon and full moon. Alternatively, the information could just be added to any appropiate pages if possible. Rolandius (talk - contr) 10:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Races

I think the Mag'har are a seperate "race" and not just a faction akin to how high elves are a different "race" from blood elves or night elves. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Skywing

Skywing is technically a Parrot (Beast) and not an Arakkoa (Humanoid). Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

WW:MOS

According to policy, some pages like General achievements should not have links in the bold of the article's lead sentence. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition, some pages like Plunder Isle should have the title of the article put in bold the first time it is mentioned. Rolandius (talk - contr) 04:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

^ Template:Cite web

[1] Template:Cite web

[1]