Okay so I guess when the source says that the greater spirit of vengeance and lesser spirit of vengeance are "Undead" and "Independent" that means they are not? Interesting... Rolandius (talk - contr) 13:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Stop reading between the lines; the article doesn't say that it's independent and undead, so why would anyone who read the article think so? --User:Gourra/Sig2 14:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- The "source" says it. Also, I asked awhile ago if a term had to be in the actual article before you could add it as a category e.g. "magical beasts" because how could one tell where it can from and I was told "No, Rolandius it is from the RPG so how could we just throw it in there". Hrm sort of hypocritical... Rolandius (talk - contr) 14:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe because they were, you know, described as magical beast in the article? Again, stop reading between the lines and coming with examples that aren't about the same thing. --User:Gourra/Sig2 14:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Where exactly were Spirits of Vengeance described as undead, then?-- (talk · contr) 02:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- The greater spirit of vengeance and lesser spirit of vengeance are independant undead in Manual of Monsters. It isn't mentioned in this article, but you told me that is okay awhile back when I asked you (User_talk:Ragestorm/Archive9#Magical_beasts_and_Racial_terminology) about the whole "magical beast" category being in articles with no mention within the actual articles of the term. I have to argue all day, get accused of "reading between the lines", have SWM linking everything I do on my Mentor page as "evidence " against me like this talk page for example, etc. just to have official source info added to an article? Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Gotta say, you're really not winning me over by bringing the review up.-- (talk · contr) 02:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.