WelcomeEdit

Welcome to WoWWiki! Hope you can help the community and vice versa (-:
If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them, or you could drop them at the reference desk (where I might answer them anyway)!
Just wanted to say welcome, and to encourage you to contribute!

 _Silverhttp://avxworkshop.com/img/ss16.png^Side

Looking for helpEdit

If you want to help with some community projects, then feel free to drop me a line here (I am watching your user_talk page) - I am looking for dedicated people who want to further WoWWiki as a community! Looking for members for the Cleanup Team, the Community Team, and the Organization committee - just remember to say which you want to join in your reply (-:

 _Silverhttp://avxworkshop.com/img/ss16.png^Side

I wanted to start adding a portion to the classes section about the differences (tactical and endgame play-feel) between builds specializing in different trees.

Example:Warlocks who specialize in the Destruction tree have insane burst damage, kill everything fastfastfast, suck down mana like it's nobody's business, will never be able to again use their Voidwalkers effectively, and if anything survives to get close to them they'll fold like a cheap suit. Their polar opposites are Warlocks who specialize in the Affliction tree. These Warlocks couldn't kill a rat fast if their lives depended on it, spend more time in combat resting than they do casting spells, shun every pet but their Voidwalker, and might as well lie down if their VW loses aggro or dies. In-between these two trees lies the Warlocks who specialize in demonoligy. They simply will...not...die easily and usually have the proper key to winning any given situation tucked away somewhere. They do, however, tend to suck down more soulstones than both of the other two builds put together as they swap out, resummon, and sacrifice their pets constantly.

Something like this only more in-deapth. Where would it go? I'll ask on the classes talk page too... --Arandmoor 13:41, 6 Dec 2005 (EST)

I'd drop it on the individual class's page (-:

Sounds awesome - I can't wait!

 _Silverhttp://avxworkshop.com/img/ss16.png^Side 15:11, 6 Dec 2005 (EST)

P.S. Please keep it more objective and professional sounding - that kind of informal language (fastfastfast and insane burst damage) is not the standard here - but other than the linguistics, I love your work! We need more info like that on the classes page (-:

Well...yeah :D --Arandmoor 17:11, 6 Dec 2005 (EST)

Also, unless someone else beats me too it I want to move the Warlock talents into a format more like the warrior talents (table on the main warlock_talent page, and each talent gets its own page, etc...). I haven't done much with wiki's before...is that something I should try and discuss with people first? Or should I be bold and just do it? --Arandmoor 17:22, 6 Dec 2005 (EST)

Be bold! Reogranizing information is generally okay, if you aren't removing alot of information or hiding it. Try to give a concise summary note when you make changes or add to the discussion page some explanation of your changes, if you think they might upset someone. --Fandyllic 3:16 PM PST 6 December 2005

I've got a version of the page I'm working on named Warlock_Talents2, and when it's done I'll move it over to the Warlock_Talents page (I'm trying to make sure I don't miss anything). Unfortunately the third table on the page is screwing up and I don't know why. Some of the table rows are trying to "eat" the rows underneath them. --Arandmoor 03:14, 7 Dec 2005 (EST)

Be bold it is! Anything that you screw up can be reverted with two clicks anyway, so play like there is no tomorrow (-:

The general rule of thumb is to make your changes, THEN to explain them on the talk page as a quick summary, THEN to explain them in depth if somebody asks / grumbles / gripes at you lol

 _ℑilver§^ℑide 07:29, 7 Dec 2005 (EST)

P.S. I'll check out that table... Warlock_Talents2 you say? I'll see what's broken - WIkisyntax can get a little confusing at times, even *I* had indefinite trouble with it when I started at Wikipedia way back... I don't even know how long ago ^^)

I'm going to move them off the templates and into regular table syntax. It looks like there's a limit to the number of templates it can parse in one page.

They parse fine in their own template pages...it's just when you try to get all 50 or so warlock talents in the same page all loading from templates that it screws up the last few...and it doesn't matter which table comes last. They alldo it!

--Arandmoor 14:31, 7 Dec 2005 (EST)

Interesting error - would you mind telling the MediaWiki staff at their meta wiki? they might be able to fix it in the next version (1.6)...

 _ℑilver§^ℑide 16:15, 7 Dec 2005 (EST)

Java is the devil. --Kakwakas 00:47, 13 Feb 2006 (EST)

It has it's quirks. It's a great language to learn OOP techniques with because they're enforced in the language's synatx. It's a horrible language to learn to program in however, because you're forced to jump right into OOP without learning the basics first. Personally I think it's better to learn to program with a language like C or PHP first.--Arandmoor 01:27, 13 Feb 2006 (EST)