|Welcome to WoWWiki!|
|Hello, Noobi666, and welcome to WoWWiki, the Warcraft wiki! Thank you for your contributions, and we heartily encourage you to continue contributing!
Some useful links:
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a WoWWikian!
Again welcome!--User:Sandwichman2448/Sig 16:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
As for the Nozdormu part at Infinite Flight
Well, they're actually not black but more or less a swirling, half-solid mass of dark energy streams. Another point why i go with saying -the old gods hacked into Nozdormu's power---Maibe (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
idea page rules
If you haven't taken the time to read the read the rules at the beginning of the idea pages, please do.
Also if you have read it, its not an excuse to ignore it.
Third, its always best to discuss your changes in the talk pages for race idea pages, to see if others agree.
Fourth, try to avoid taking sources you might site, out of context. The underground reference for example was not to the Forsaken, but the Dark Iron dwarves storyline already seen in-game and the Gnomer questlines.Baggins (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
it may also mean something else. dark irons yes, but something else TOO User:Noobi666 (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://www.wowwiki.com/User_talk:Baggins"
- No that excuse won't work... I am a competetent reader, and I happened to notice you removed the sentence preceding the sentence you misused, in the same paragraph. It was that previous sentence specified and qualified which "underground race" it was talking about. It was very specific in pointing out it was talking about the Dark Iron dwarves. There is no excuse for doing that. If I catch you doing anything like that again, there will be consequences.
- I'll let your user idea page pass, since it is on a user page. However, there will be a warning that you took a paragraph from the book you cited out of context on at least the talk page.Baggins (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- For continuing to ignore the page rules (not discussing major changes first), twisting information, taking things out of context, inserting false information, and invalid or weak points (the ones that lead to pure weakly supported speculation), you have earned yourself a 1 week ban. I'd suggest when you return, that you don't edit that page, and only discuss changes in the talk page. If we agree the admins will change the page for you.Baggins (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Edit wars & speculation
Please avoid edit warring with other users, and admins, User:Gourra. Also as we have mentioned before speculation without citations (it needs citations that strongly support the speculation) are frowned upon. Speculation should be at the end of a page, and should at least make sense.
BTW, polygamy means "multiple marriage" it is actual marriage. A concubine is someone who isn't married that lives with a man. So concubines have nothing to do with "marriage".Baggins (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Noobi666, there was something you said about my speculation that irks me to no end.
What makes you think the birthing of humans was "evolution"? None of the other creations of the Titans really "evoled", at least not without being afflicted with the Curse of Flesh, which really doesn't count seeing as how it's a curse, and it isn't really natural. Toran Wildpaw of the Frenzyheart (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh, yes, I remember something else now...
You say vrykul always had flesh.
Care to explain Sjonnir The Ironshaper then?
Lol, I could say the same about YOU.
The Curse of Flesh article says that some of the constructs of the Titans were affected. That most likely affected vrykul too, seeing Sjonnir over there -waves at him-.
so you mean iron vrykul - flesh vrykul - humans? but if flesh vrykuls breed normally, why do they give birth to humans and how is curse of flesh related to it Noobi666 (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
You are being asked to cease and desist of removal of citations from pages concerning stone guardians, stone watchers, and stone keepers. Blizzard often uses those terms interchangeably in sources, and apply them to different things. Yes we know the ingame models also have different names. If the info is properly cited from official source do nto remove it.
Also as a rule we avoid using model names as sure fire race designation, we resort more to published or in game quotes instead, if they clarify things.
- doesn't loken use the titan model? We know nothing about the things using the titan model, other than that they use the titan model...Baggins (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
If that section is to stay in the article, there is not to be any twisting of information.
1. half-sindorei is not an official term. They are the half-blood elves.
2. Half-blood elves do not exist yet, they are currently hypothetical possibility. Humans and blood elves have to fix their problems and get back together before it is likely to happen. But you need to read the rpg to fully undertand this.
3. half-blood elves are a seperate category and race than half-elves.
- cough*half-orc*cough* *cought*haliscan*cought*
- Yes, speculation sections and pages can exist.
- There is no problem with making a half-orc article, as they currently exist, however, its irrelevent to compare them to half-blood elves. Which according to the RPG (consequently the only source that even suggests the idea of their future existence) won't exist until at least 20 years in the future, if they will exist at all.Baggins (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Northeron and Hinterlands
Actually Hinterlands does not appear in Day of the Dragon by that term. Northeron and Hinterlands may be the same location, or they may be seperate locations, or Northeron may be a location within Hinterlands. We do know that the HInterlands existed during the Second War thanks to Tides of Darkness novel.Baggins (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Faceless ones and necromancy
I see you have once again reverted the removal of the Iron Earthen from the Race origins page. You even quoted the change with the very discussion that resulted in g0urra deleting the Iron Earthen page. It was a recent discussion, and not an old one in any way. Did you even read it?
I'll point to you the arguements, and I hope that you will revert the page yourself, so that we don't perpetuate an absurd edit war.
Arguments for the name "Iron Earthen".
1 - The new Iron Earthen look shiny and metalic from a distance. The general looks is also extremely similar to that of the Iron dwarves.
2 - The image created by MMO-Champion, a NON-OFFICIAL website/group, BEFORE the release of WotLK, labeled the new Earthen models as "Iron Earthen".
Arguments against the name "Iron Earthen".
1 - The Northrend Earthen who use this skin are fighting the Iron dwarves, and are allied with the Stone/Mountain giants. The Iron dwarves are refered to as the "Irons".
2 - No Northrend Earthen NPC or Quest labels these Earthen as Iron Earthen. Quests often refer to this battle as the battle between Stone/Earth and Iron.
3 - One quest makes it clear that to heal the damaged Earthen, they need special EARTH.
4 - A close inspection of the Earthen's skin will show that they present a stone-llike pattern and cracks. The Iron dwarves do not. Instead, the Iron dwarves' torsos are covered in metal plates that are held together with bolts. A close inspection of the Iron dwarves arms will show that, though they are rugged, they show none of the cracks that the Earthen show. The Earthen's head presents cracks that the Iron dwarves do not.
I think it's pretty overwhelming. Iron Earthen aren't part of the Iron faction. They are allied to the Earth faction in the war against the Iron faction. They are also not as metalic in nature as a mere glance would reveal. The other similarities with the Iron dwarves are not surprising, as the Iron dwarves are likely derived from these same Earthen. This does not, however, mean that the Earthen can be called Iron Earthen.
Finally, no OFFICIAL source has ever called them Iron Earthen.
Proove to us otherwise, and we will gladly conceede defeat. Until then, the burden of proof remains invariably on your side.
...they are not part of irons. so what? thats pretty bad argument, letsnot start edit war, see erlier edits and talk page. the end PS:it was not from fan page. Noobi666 (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Noobi, that's not the point. The point is is that these "Iron" Earthen shouldn't necessarily be called "Iron" Earthen just because they look similiar and/or are labeled as "Iron" Earthen by MMO-Champion. Toran Wildpaw of the Frenzyheart (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)