Again, welcome!   --Kirkburn (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


When making edits, click the "Show preview" for the result before saving it. This will cut down on the number of edits you do and improves the quality of your edits.--User:Gourra/Sig2 08:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


When making edits, please spend more time thinking about the changes you're making - I've had to revert some as they the result has either incorrectly altered the meaning of the text, or removed valid info. I also have revert edits like this as it was obviously just copy-pasted text and obliterated all that was already there including the (suddenly very appropriate) wikify template. Kirkburn  talk  contr 14:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Btw, please don't take this as me chasing you off - your edits are appreciated, but need a bit more care :) Kirkburn  talk  contr 07:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Just another friendly reminder. Unless you are absolutely sure about a change i would recommend discussing it in talk page before hand. I noticed quite a few of your changes to lore pages had to be reverted recently, most often because it seems you misunderstood the subject. Effort to improve Wowwiki is greatly appreciated however :). Warthok Talk Contribs 03:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Image war

That is the third time you have removed someone else's image from a page to be replaced with your own image. There is nothing wrong with having 2 images on the page showing off the mount in two different views. You've stated no reasoning to your removal of the image. Be warned, if you do it a forth time I will add you to the vandals list. User:Coobra/Sig3 19:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I see that you're uploading new images to replace your old ones with new names. If you don't like your old versions please just upload a new version under the same name. Example being, Image:Hugediablo.jpg -- Image:Kingdiablo.jpg. User:Coobra/Sig3 20:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Parachute Cloak

You removed the comment about Zul Farrak from the Parachute cloak schematic page. Before I simply revert it, I thought I'd ask your reasoning. So... why so? --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Most, if not all, of your recent edits have been the removal of content that is speculative or the changing of information. Coobra reverted a lot of it, and I agree with him. Your answer to Eirik's question shows you have a reason for at least some of your edits, and that is good. Why are you removing all that information? In a side note, try to write edit summaries with your reasons if it is questionable. --SWM2448 15:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Stub removal

If the page barely has anything on it, don't remove the stubs, especially the {{Screenshot}} stub if no screenshot exists. This includes if there are no categories on the page. No category = Stubbed. User:Coobra/Sig3 23:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Information removal

Removing information continuously without talking about it beforehand will get you banned if constantly deemed not justifiable. Adys 15:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Especially when you are using the comment "updated with new information" for text removal :) Kirkburn  talk  contr 15:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Block for 1 week

I counted at least 4 incidences where you removed information and gave a misleading edit summary. Your block starts 28 April 2008 and ends around 5 May 2008. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:49 PM PST 28 Apr 2008

Silly template

Is only to be used for fan humor articles. It doesn't go on official blizzard content at all, despite how silly something by Blizzard might seem.Baggins (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


Just as a note, they aren't building a new Dalaran in Northerend, they are rebuilding it where it is befor levitating/teleporting it to Northerend. I know it's crazy, but hey, if Blizzard says so, then it is so. CogHammer Ose t/c 11:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox & alignment

The alignment section is only supposed to be used if an official source states specifically what their alignment is, i.e it must be from a citeable source. The main reason I added alignment section was because it gives a small indication of what Blizzard may think of a faction, outside of the regular commentary from Brann or other inuniverse characters. Any that I have added have been actual quotes.

Alignment is not to be used to insert fan opinion. Remember our neutral point of view policy.Baggins (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox again

Ok, this is in warning for additions and removal to the infobox. 1. The language sections are not to be touched they are taken right out of the RPG language information for the race. In the RPG Common is always the second "primary" language for the majority of every race, with few exceptions. If yout alter those again you will get mor than just a warning.

2. Many of the cells are "optional" for a reason. They will not appear unless something is filled in. If something is not available then there is no reason to fill in the section. Leave it blank.

3. Cool it, with the infobox, for unseeable future, I don't want to see you editing the infobox unless you ask first inorder to see if your change is valid. Do not alter the infobox until you get an answer telling you yes. ...or maybe the admin does it for you. Generaly speaking ask me because I have access to the books to check the information. This is to prevent you from removing official information and you adding speculation. Lastly, if your aregoing to talk to me in my talk page, use the same topic heading, don't create a dozen for short answers. That is annoying. Anyways remember you are currently exiled from editing the infoboxes, unless you can validate your info first.Baggins (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I believed you've been banned from editing the infoboxes, so why are you adding Runemaster to some still? And just saying "Dark Factions" in the comment line isn't citation. It's best you listen to Baggins, or you might find yourself banned from editing completely. I will be undo all your lore page edits to the infobox. User:Coobra/Sig3 20:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
i just added runemaster because those races can be runemaster, is it wrong to add it or..? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M1330 (talkcontr).

In regards to Ancient Protector believe I have warned you against adding or removing from the infoboxes without asking permission first. if you have a problem discuss it in the talk page. Do not remove it instead ask someone with access to the RPG. This is your final warning. Third strike and you are out.Baggins (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What you can't listen? In regards to forgotten one... I've told you you before no editing the infobox until you get an answer confirming that you can do so. But you keep on editing it anyways. Speculation should not be in the infobox. This is your third and last warning. I will give you one more chance. I will show you mercy once more but don't try my patience please.Baggins (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


so...i can´t edit infobox? sorry, i didnt know —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M1330 (talkcontr). could you miss the first three warnings?Warthok Talk Contribs 11:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
but i was not illegal before...M1330 (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Chicken or the egg... actually dark trolls are said to be an offshoot of one of the other troll races, see Troll Compendium on the official site, possibly "forest trolls" according to a warcraft III mission. The progenitor race of trolls is the Zandalar Trolls. Generally speaking speculation is only allowed if it followes cited lore. Pure speculation without citations is frowned upon. Secondly that high elf turning black. The source never states that he is a "dark elf" only that he is a corrupted "high elf". Thus its speculation that he is a dark elf.Baggins (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Not only is some of your speculation a bit out there... With no support, or very little. Your grammar, spelling and writing style needs to be improved. We have certain standards here... No offense.Baggins (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


I don't think Common is tied to the Titans. The reason many races speak it is because the Humans have a larger population than other races. Also, the other races have thier own primary languages. Common is only thier secondary language that they learned when they came in contact with the Human race. Rolandius (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Low Common and Common shows up as the primary races for alot of Draenor races oddly enough. Ogres for example. However, "modern Common" as Brann calls it is an evolution of ancient Common, and which likely has nothing to do with titan at all. Dwarven language is a combination of Titan and Common though. While its still possible that Common does have ties to the Titans (humans evolved from a titan proto-being) there is no need for the speculaton section. There is such a thing as too much speculation... (I'm actually sick of the sections, and discussing a new policy for them).Baggins (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh okay. When I read that chart at the bottom of the page though it says Dranei speak Dranei. I didn't see Ogre in the chart but I thought it might be Ogrish or something. Rolandius (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I say suggest M1330 since all you ever post is speculation that you limit your speculation to the talk pages for an article. If enough people think that its important enough, and interesting enough. Then we'll decide if it should then go into the topic page. But not before then.Baggins (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Learn to read, huh?

The citation's right there on the page. BRANN thinks he's an old god. That does not automatically make him an old god, which means that stays out of the race portion of the box. --Sky (t · c · w) 08:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are. Brann's speculation still don't get into the infobox. Period. End of story. You can feel free to approach either the master hobbit about it or the storm that rages on it. --Sky (t · c · w) 08:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
In fact, it's rather funny you threatened me with a ban... --Sky (t · c · w) 08:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
No, not happy now. As for Eternal, yes, it can be used as a race: Earth Mother for one, Elune for another. These have already been seen over by Baggins. He's the one putting the information there. If you don't like it, "tough". --Sky (t · c · w) 08:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you just pulled that (They're eternals) out of your butt.
As for the LoC quote: Lands of Conflict is written by Brann. Oops? --Sky (t · c · w) 09:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope. If it's Brann speculating, it's still speculation. If it's a player speculating, then it probably doesn't belong on the page. See the difference? I'll wait for the hobbit to wake for this one, but I expect him to come to my side. --Sky (t · c · w) 09:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


So why aren't you saying anything after Kesmana edited the page? Rolandius (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


1. Any material from the perspective of Brann Bronzebeard is in-universe and as such, is from his perspective, offering his opinions, which may be correct and may be wrong. 2. Rolandius's edits might be suspect and he needs a good talking-to about talk pages and what sort of speculation goes into articles. He is not a vandal. 3. As a deterrent against the recent edit war, I will be banning the next person to edit species.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 18:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sylvanas' "new model"

Where did you get that from? User:Gourra/Sig2 10:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

He found it somwhere online, where exactly is unimportant because it's fan created. I've reverted to Blizzard's model. M1330 please be more careful with any future edits. Might want to run them by someone else first.Warthok Talk Contribs 19:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sylvanas picture

great job! that sylvanas picture was awsome! Kesmana (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You do know that it's not originally his , right? User:Gourra/Sig2 11:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL Say yes Kesmana.  Rolandius Wc3Knight (talk - contr) 11:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

who cares? its like million times better than that WMV picture made in 2minutes, btw, delete earlier Kesmana (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

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