Again, welcome!   --Pcj (TC) 16:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


Don't forget to put the zone name when using {{co}}. Thanks. --Pcj (TC) 23:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Stormjewels Edit

"... conjecture and incorrect". You can say specifically "incorrect"? You know otherwise? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:08, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

I can definitively say it was incorrect as posted: "This change was probably made because of the release of epic gems." Since they are themselves epic gems (not to mention that epic gems have been around at least since Burning Crusade), the release of epic gems could not possibly have been the cause of the change.
If there are specific new epic gems that you meant to link, adding them to your statement would then make it just conjecture, unless, of course, you change "probably" to "possibly", or change "was probably" to "may have been", or something to that effect. Then your statement would no longer be either conjecture or incorrect.  ;-) Keyesc (talk) 21:11, December 22, 2009 (UTC)
Not my statement. However, I am thinking that what was mean was specifically "WotLK epic cut gems". Would that also be incorrect? I'm not familiar with whether Dragon's Eye cuts were epic or not prior to the new set (Cardinal Ruby et al). It's speculation regardless of qualifiers, though, unless some definitive word from Blizzard comes out. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:33, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
My apologies if I was confusing: these gems are themselves WotLK epic cut gems; I did not mean to imply that these particular epic gems were BC epics; I was merely stating that epic gems in general have been around at least since then. So, even if the phrase were "WotLK epic cut gems", it would still be incorrect, since they could not be the cause of their own change. Dragon's Eyes were epic prior to 3.2 (when Cardinal Ruby came out), but their stats were increased in 3.2. Now, if he were to say "Call of the Crusade epic gems" or "3.2.0 epic gems", then, indeed, I would not be able to refute the correctness of the statement, and would merely remove it as speculation or fluff. ((unsigned|Keyesc}}
Works for me. :) --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:53, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Green Glow Edit

I believe that the timer was specifically the "duration" on the High Potency Radioactive Fallout. No other timer ever existed. Unless that duration has been removed, the 2 hour limit between collecting and turning in remains. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:47, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

I did this quest again: you are correct. My apologies. Keyesc (talk) 01:51, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
No worries. You do, though, take all the whimsy out of my quest notes! Smiley --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:23, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
lol, I was torn about changing that, and I would have left it I could have rationalized the inaccuracy. Unfortunately, the half-life is the time it takes for half of a radioactive substance to decay, so, that would have meant you would still have half of it after two hours, lol.
True. I would have had to say something like "has a short half life", or "has a half life of only 15 minutes, becoming too weak for use after 2 hours". ... but the opportunity for that has passed; It's not a good enough joke to edit the page just to put it back in. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:50, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Physical Edit

What's up with the <dt>s and the <br />s?[1] Already posted this to Kirkburn's talk page, he said it wasn't a bug that he could think of. --Sky (t · c) 16:58, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Umm, not sure what the <dt>s are you're referring to, but the <br/>s on the page you cited were to make the items listed appear on separate lines, similar to the previous format of that page. Without them, the items all run together in one blob. Keyesc (talk) 17:39, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
<dt>s (might be <dd>s), are the ":" that you added. <br/>s aren't necessary with that formatting.
Ok, was just checking in. Looked like a bug. For the future, you would probably be better off using normal bullets, as I did in the edit or two after yours. --Sky (t · c) 17:43, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is desiredEdit

Hey, we're pretty much settled on leaving Wikia, but I wanted to see if you had any input. Thanks. --PcjGamepedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C58,976 contributions and counting) 23:06, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't had the chance to familiarize myself with the specifics of the issue, and do not have an informed opinion. But I certainly appreciate your asking. --Keyesc (talk) 00:35, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
However, if this "No such special page" I keep getting redirected to is caused by them, then I whole-heartedly support our leaving.  ;-) Keyesc (talk) 00:39, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
Hah! If you get that error with pages whose name starts with "Go" then that is a Wikia issue. We've reported it, but its exactly stupid stuff like this that are the problem. --PcjGamepedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!

C58,976 contributions and counting) 00:43, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

You bring the tar; I'll bring the feathers. --Keyesc (talk) 02:40, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to let you know we are moving to Feel free to join us! --PcjGamepedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!

C58,976 contributions and counting) 18:09, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.