Again, welcome!   --Kirkburn (talk)

Biased edits

It is plainly obvious that you are biased towards the Horde. Please, in future, attempt to write from a neutral point of view. For example ... being hostile to the Alliance in no way makes them not slaves. Kirkburn talk contr 19:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

They do make no attempts to escape. They are never said to be slaves either. They could just be laborers. with bad working conditions. Zarnks 19:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
And a guard. In the middle of a capital city without other gnomes, populated by elves with odd views of right and wrong. Yes, it's possible, but unlikely :P Edited the article to show both possibilities. Kirkburn talk contr 19:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well who else would hire them. It also seems to be a parody of sweatshops. In sweatshops the workers aren't slaves. just under bad conditions. Zarnks 19:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"Parody" is an odd phrase to use, and sweatshops can essentially be slavery. Kirkburn talk contr 19:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a parody(not saying it is non canon) of the rumours nike sweatshops in certain communist countries. WOW is full of parodies. And you do get paid for working in sweatshops,you just have bad conditions. Besides if you kill the guard the gnomes make no attempt to escape and continue working. Zarnks 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder to please try and use as little biased language as possibly. Words such as "unfortunately" have no place in factual articles, unless specifically required. Thanks! Kirkburn talk contr 04:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
As an example "Unfortuntely Daelin wants to kill all orcs" is biased ... whereas "Unfortuntely for Thrall, Daelin wants to kill all orcs" is not biased (but now far too wordy!). Hope that helps explain? Kirkburn talk contr 04:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I realise you know a lot about the horde, but please try and restrict the number of places you put their view/info. It is not appropriate to add very specific details about factions on the Outland page, for example. Kirkburn talk contr 00:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Zarnks 00:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars

Do not engage in edit wars. If you have a controversial edit, YOU are the one to dicuss it first. Kirkburn talk contr 19:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I already created a posted on it in the discussion page. Zarnks 19:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't excuse continually reverting the page from an admin. Let the discussion occur first. Oh, and this is your final warning. It's a good idea to listen to admins. Kirkburn talk contr 19:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Despite your opinions that a contradiction of some sort exists, there are also differing opinions. First off have you ever heard of retcons? Sometimes older material is updated in newer sources, other times flavor lore exists.. Secondly it is the policy of this wiki, that all sources are of equal validity. Novels, RPG, Games, Manga are equal sources of lore as stated by Metzen. We list all info at equal level, and we don't make them one sided to horde or alliance. It is not a dichotomy, we avoid the pro-alliance, and pro-horde debate by putting all views of the issue into the information. We also give published sources dates whenever possible.
If you feel like a contradiction exists, you are free to discuss it in the talk pages, but they do not belong in the articles.Baggins 19:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well then Post on It. I already created it on the talk page but no is responding to it. Zarnks 19:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Because you keep reverting the page. The wiki acts on the scale of days, not seconds. Kirkburn talk contr 19:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless there is clearly a contradiction,you and baggins just seem to be biased to discuss it. Zarnks 19:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The page already mentions the contradictions and gives both sides of the argument. You appear trying to insinuate that the RPG is the one that is wrong. The issue is complicated and has many sides. It is not a case of "the game" vs "the books". Kirkburn talk contr 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

All I said was that it was a typo on the part of the part of the writers. I never said which writers. It could be a typo on the part of the site/game writers or on the part of the rpg writers. Zarnks 19:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You have tested my patience enough. I am giving you a day's suspension from the wiki so you can relax and perhaps come back and discuss the edit with us. (WW:3RR). Kirkburn talk contr 20:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
You have done it again, and this time have received a 3 day suspension. You were warned several times in the Talk:Future race ideas page, that this action would happen if you continued to revert and remove info from the page. As a future warnig repeated offenses generally become progressively worse, so don't repeat this again, or initiate future edit wars. As a side note your info is in the page already for neutrality, and to fit published lore.09:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Future race ideas

Some of these edits severly annoy me - specifically all the Pandaren edits and the Alliance shamanism comment. I'm sure I don't need to explain why. Don't do it. Kirkburn talk contr 16:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Done a bit more work through it, it wasn't all bad :) Though if I see you slip "the horde is known to be very forgiving" into an article again, I will scream. Kirkburn talk contr 16:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Marking edits as minor

Please don't do it as much - it is only really for use for typos and grammar correction. Thanks :) Kirkburn talk contr 17:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages

What exactly are you trying to prove? I remind you (again) that this is not a forum. While most everyone is prepared to discuss the occasional lore point on the talk page, the purposes of the talk pages are to discuss changes to the article, not random lore discussions. In future, I suggest you use the analysis subpages for your lore discussions, if you feel that people would like to talk about the subject. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 12:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

uncited information

I've warned you about posting informatin without using the {{cite}} or {{fact}}. I've also warned you about reposting informatino and claiming it was cited when you haven't cited it. I've also warned you about using "qualifiers" like "some", "few" etc, unless you could post citations as to those terms being used or strongly implied by correctly cited quotes. Others have also warned you against using individuals of a race to discuss bias of the whole, but you continue to try to do that. I've told you i'd be giving you a 5 (2 more days more than your previous bans, if I caught you doing this again), I've even given you some mercy, and let a few infractions slide. However, I'm noticing it occuring between you and raze on a couple of articles. The same complaints I've been getting by many members of the forums, the same complains and warnings I've given you, I've seen you do the same kind of thing on tauren and forsaken analysas page. I'm sorry to have to do this but you will be getting your 5 day ban soon. This is to let you know why you have been banned.Baggins 05:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Aww. But there are tauren who seek to cure the forsaken for instance the council of elders and the Earthen ring. I gave my cite, Mani winterhoof and the council of elders in Thunderbluff where Magatha holds a position. Zarnks 05:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Claiming to have "cited" something is not hte same as using {{cite}}, which is a correct form of citation method. Sorry but you were warned several times this week, you are now banned, enjoy your vacation. Please don't do this again when you return, the next level of "ban" is two weeks.Baggins 05:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Adys one of the more senior admins has decided that 1 week was not enough for repeat offenses, and has increased your ban to 3 months. Enjoy your vacation, please don't repeat the infractions when you return... I can't stress this enough, if you make the same infractions and get banned too many times, you'll finally reach the nasty "permaban", and you'll never get to contribute again. I don't think you would enjoy or want that.Baggins 15:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an exact quote but it does say that that the elder council pities the forsaken. I'll revert if you don't like the link)

Thank you. When I ask for a "citation" means give a link, a quest name, a page number, etc. A citation should always be included if a claim is made, or someone might dispute the information.Baggins 02:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Is the link okay? Zarnks 02:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine. Others can judge if your interpretation is fair or not. If you can find a citation for a more direct reference, you can add the link as well.Baggins 02:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The best example would be the tauren view the tauren view the forsaken like Leper victims which they are kinda of. Zarnks 02:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If you find the quote where certain tauren think of Forsaken as "lepers" by all means add it in and cite it. If you can't cite it, it would have to be marked with the citation needed comment. It would be removed, if a citation wasn't added.Baggins 02:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well thats what I get from the descriptions of the foraken by the guards,the Earthen ring and Mani Winterhoof. Some tauren want to create a cure for undeath. Most of this is dialogue so it can't be taken from Wowhead or Thottbott. Zarnks 02:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Directly quote the guards, Earthen Ring, etc, even better take screenshots. Then put the comment in the talk page for the topic. Seeing a direct quote is much better in order to make sure context is being preserved.Baggins 02:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking a break from Wow now. We already got the citation though. Zarnks 02:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

One citation sure, more is better. Just take screenshots when you get a chance. I can't do it myself for a while, busy.Baggins 02:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Two Hordes

I think you are missing the point of the Two Hordes article. Its to highlight differences between the two parts of the horde and to "chronicle" all details that make a "rift" between them, the majority rather than minorities. The nitty gritty of relationship information about minorities should be found in each race's individual pages.Baggins 05:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah ok. Zarnks 05:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No prob, :).Baggins 05:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Playable trolls

Actually so far the playable trolls in the RPG as far as full featured rules, are Darkspear jungle trolls, and Revantusk forest trolls. There are ways to play as other kinds of trolls but it takes some conversion processes, and special rules.Baggins 01:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm the game makes it pretty clear that they don't pratice cannibalism,troll quest givers denouncing it. Zarnks 07:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are those that denounce it, and many have probably honestly stopped being cannibals. However, others are apparently hyprocrites who have denouned it in public, but still practice it behind the Horde's back, its said many still practice it in secret. Its hard to tell the numbers, of those who have truly stopped being cannibals and those that still practice it, though, to know if its a minority or a majority that still practice it, and its left to individual choice. Also it should be noted that "cannibalism" in warcraft definition is eating any sapient species, not just one's own race.Baggins 07:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Several troll quest givers denounce cannibalism and its stated the officialy gave it up. One of those writers in the rpg always seemed to have it out for trolls. Zarnks 07:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Are my edits to the darkspear article okay with you? Zarnks 07:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, its stated that darkspear trolls claim to have "officially" given it up, but you seem to forget how real world mechanics work. Just because someone can claim to give up smoking doesn't mean they might not practice it behind people's backs. Nor can government claim to do away with drinking or pot, and have every member of society abide by those rules (just look at history)... Should I point out again that Metzen is behind the RPG, and that its multi-writer work (I.E. all the writers have to go through Metzen and he has to agree, before it can be printed)?
Having reviewed the article I've decided you were the one with the misconception, and I've reworded it to be closer to official lore.Baggins 08:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No the misconception is that Darkspears are cannibals not no longer cannibals thats just reinforcing the misconception. It is illegal for Trolls to pratice cannibalism in the Horde.

What I will write if I can. It is a misconception that Darkspear trolls are cannibals. While they officialy gave it up(making it illegal in the Horde) when joining the Horde [1][2] (HPG 145), and there are Revantusk who down on this concept [3], an unknown number are still known to practice cannibalism. These Darkspear trolls practice it in the secret. In the RPG, Darkspear trolls & Forsaken can share the Cannibalize ability (its use is up to individual choice). See Cannibalize for more info.[2] (HPG 145). World of Warcraft implies that the majority by far are not cannibalistic,with many troll npcs denouncing other tribes for praticing it. Zarnks 08:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've done a bit more wordsmithing on it to prevent it implying Darkspearss still cannibalise en masse. Thoughts? Kirkburn talk contr 08:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you get rid of the line saying Revantusk look down on cannibals. And its still reinforcing the misconception. It is illegal for trolls in the Horde, and most trolls look denounce it. By far they are not cannibals. Are we going to say Duskwood humans are cannibals next because of Abecrombie. Zarnks 08:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Its illegal for people to smoke pot, and yet people still do it. Laws are broken. Just because a law exists doesn't mean that all people follow it.Baggins 08:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not it is illegal isn't relevant to whether they actually do it. Your comparison, meanwhile, is absurd. I have added an intor sentence to the text to explain both sides. Kirkburn talk contr 08:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Officialy they are non cannibalistic. It should be mentioned that the majority don't pratice it and it is illegal. Every race has its crazies that don't represent their population. Zarnks 08:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"at which point the Darkspears officially gave up cannibalism." From Blizzard,they are officialy non Cannibals. Zarnks 08:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Also officially from Blizzard, "Forsaken are undead, and thus are unable to heal without magical aid. Studying ghouls and abominations, some Forsaken mimic their ability to devour flesh to restore their own. Historically, trolls are cannibals, and have learned to consume flesh to accelerate their own healing. Cannibalizing the corpse of a good or intelligent neutral creature is an evil act." [2] (HPG 31)

"The Darkspear tribe no longer practices cannibalism — at least not openly."[2] (HPG 145) -BagginshobbitBagginstalk § contr08:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll say it again, every race has its crazies that don't represent their population. Metzen has called the Darkspear trolls good guys from a evil race, doing all they can to steer straight. They are officialy good and not evil. Every race has its crazies that don't represent their population. Zarnks 08:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The point of the section is to analyse whether cannibalism still exists - the quotes and citations so far do not appear to suggest it is limited to a very few individuals, even if it is a minority of the race as a whole. Kirkburn talk contr 08:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Personally I'd like to say whoever thinks cannibals are evil, is really thinking from a ethnocentric point of view... The culturalists, sociologists, and anthropologists on the other hand would consider it an amoral cultural belief, neither good nor evil. That is it might be evil in a western society, but not necessarily evil in an another society.Baggins 08:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it depends. Eating someone who is already dead neither is ritual cannibalism like eating the finger of a leader(it'll grow back) is not bad. Going out of your way to eat someone is. Zarnks 17:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you are so ethnocentric. The Aztecs had ritual sacrifice of live humans and cannibalism of human hearts. It was not believed to be evil in their society.Baggins 17:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if they are willingly or trying to kill you, its okay. You said so yourself "Cannibalizing the corpse of a good or intelligent neutral creature is an evil act." [2] (HPG 31)" Zarnks 17:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was quoting the RPG, doesn't mean I was agreeing from it from an anthropological standpoint.
Actually Aztec cannibalism, the sacrfice was not trying to kill anyone, and was a member of the society (some argue it was considered a great honor to be the sacrifice, and believed that they gave themselves willingly). While others would self sacrifce themselves, removing parts of their body to offer to the gods. All of which was not considered evil in Aztec society, nor do most scientists believe it is evil to this day, unless they are ethnocentric to begin with.Baggins 17:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well in real life they aren't any actual cannibals that go out of their way to eat people. And if their willingly,already,already dead,ritual cannibalism,or nessecary for survival its okay with me. Zarnks 17:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well actually there are stories in Papau New Guinea from various clans of their clans going out and attacking other clans and then killing and eating them, or being raided by other clans, and having relatives eaten. Anthropologists argue on the veracity of the tales, but no one knows for sure. But most believe if the stories are true, that they were amoral acts, and not an act of "evil", perhaps of necessity and survival, perhaps to scare tribes from breaking out into much larger and bloody conflicts, or for religious reasons. No one really knows for sure. Most of the tribes do not believe their actions were evil, unless filtered through later western missionary teachings.Baggins 18:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"New Horde"

Ok, let's look at Eitrigg's quest adn how you have you misinterpreted it.

First off, Title of a Quest does not relate to literal lore, nor is it something said by characters to one another. Otherwise "Are We There Yeti?" would mean something profound to lore, :p.

Secondly a title is always capitalized, even if the term itself may not be, as in the use of "new Horde", or "new horde" in other sources.

Third, Eitrigg even call the entity "The Horde" and claims that it has changed, but never once has he said it ceased being the same horde. Nor does he personally use the term "new Horde".

Lastly, Eitrigg claims in Horde Player's Guide that it is the same Horde, that it just has changed, nearly word for word or at least meaning for meaning, what was in that quest. Please don't let me catch you misinterpreting information again.

Also, the official name for modern Horde, is simply "Horde" the same name it always was. "new horde" might be a nickname, but we use formal names in articles rather than "nicknames". Nicknames, are limited to secondary information in sources rather than primary, either in a names section, or in notes.Baggins 07:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There is the citation from Blizzplanet. Oh heres one from the website[1]. Zarnks 08:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Again two things. One again that is the title of an article. Titles of an article are always upper case, even if the phrase itself is actually lower case. Its lower case "new horde" in warcraft III, and its used a a nickname. The book actually referrs to two seperate entities as the "new horde", and one of them has nothing to do with Thrall but, Beyond the Dark Portal.
Secondly that article was made back in 2004 or so. There are plenty of sources made over the course of 2005-2007 that state that "new Horde" and "new horde" is only a nickname, not literal, for original Horde that went through changes under Thrall.
Even Eitrigg in the game just says the Horde has changed. He doesn't say the "Horde ceased to be". I don't understand why you want to twist his words. If the older horde no longer existed, then it "couldn't change" by logic. The fact it still exists means it could change.Baggins 08:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because it was made in 2004 doesn't it make any less accurate. It is refered by Blizzard itself as the New Horde,therefore it is a valid name. The Old Horde lies with rend and the Illidan. 99% of the orcs in the Horde didn't like the old Horde,the ones who did are with Rend or Illidan. Doomhammer himself wasn't fond of it and longed for the days on Draenor. Zarnks 08:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"make any less accurate."
First off let me remind you of "retcons" Blizzard can decide to change things on whim, that is something said back in 2003, or even 2004, can be wiped out by something said at a more recent date if Blizzard so decides to. If older information does not comply with newer information, it can be "out of date and inaccurate" due to retcons.
They have decided that "new horde" is simply a nickname even as far back as warcraft III it was first mentioned in italics the universal designation for nicknames, and its called simply "Horde" in the game, its official formal name. Blizzard also states its a nickname in Lands of Mystery as well. Also i'm sure you know of the starting screen in WoW, the official name for the organization is simply, "Horde", not "new horde", "new Horde", "New Horde" (lower case "new" is actually the proper grammatical use of the term, its only capitalized when its a title of an article, but lower case when used in a sentences).
Again primary names are used in articles not nicknames to keep articles formal. Secondly you do understand that the RPG is by Blizzard as well? Metzen is in charge of them as he is the game itself. I repeat, Eitrigg just refers to the Horde, as the Horde, and that the Horde has changed, but its still only the Horde. Again he points out in his own words, that the Horde one entity capable of change, and it was still around to be able to go through change. If they were two entities and the previous one ceased to exist, he would have said so. A non-existing organization would not have been able to change.

P.S. you may have cited Blizzplanet, but blizzplanet did not cite its source, thus making it improper and invalid source of information. If you are going to cite a source, you need to make sure the source itself has correct citations. Believe me when I tell you this you need to go back to school (if you aren't in one), or go to college and take a course in higher-level english to learn proper citation methods[2], and difference betwen proper sources and how to judge for source credibility on the internet.Baggins 09:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The Blizzplanet is an excerpt from the Story section of the rpg.

"I repeat, Eitrigg just refers to the Horde, as the Horde, and that the Horde has changed, but its still only the Horde. Again he points out in his own words, that the Horde one entity capable of change, and it was still around to be able to go through change. If they were two entities and the previous one ceased to exist, he would have said so. A non-existing organization would not have been able to change." For the sake of making things less complicated,we should call it the New Horde(a valid nick name used by Blizzard itself). Zarnks 22:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Again I remind its not a "capitalized" term except when used as a title for a quest or article, otherwise its lower case or only Horde is upper case. Please understand correct grammatical uses of article titles vs. in paragraph uses. Secondly the way we are using things now is not complicated at all, except maybe for people with small brain pans to begin with, that have little understanding of context and meaning...Baggins 22:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


Your POV edits are starting to get extremely tiresome. You've been warned countless times, and banned at least thrice. I'm ignoring your recent edit to Goblin, given the validity of the source. However, I remind you that half-elves and Night Elves are present in the accompanying Alliance image, and neither are not unilaterally Alliance. The Goblins, though present in the Horde, are nowhere near a full member race. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 18:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Your talking about my edits but ignoring the blatant anti Horde Bias that Baggins put in the Horde article. How come my picture of a goblin listed a Horde race is too old but Baggin's from the same time isn't? Zarnks 18:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove it because it was too old, I removed it because you were trying to prove an unencyclopedic point.
Since I am heavily against POV edits, I will listen to your accusations against Baggins, if you point me to the specific passages. However, I warn you, Baggins's history with POV issues is much, much shorter than yours. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 18:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I point to the villain races in the Horde article. Which include a non darkspear trolls and a illidari blood elf. But Baggins is claiming it is a darkspear trolls and a Horde blood elf(which is impossible as when that was drawn,non Illidari blood elves didn't exist). I have never in a single edit called the Alliance villains. Zarnks 18:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You haven't, but other people have. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 19:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Like what and those edits have been removed. Why isn't this one being removed? Zarnks 19:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How about "It's the title of the image." If Baggins had made it up himself, it would be gone in a heartbeat. It's the original title, that Baggins happened to transcribe here. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 19:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

But its a Jungle troll and a illidari blood elf. This is the most biased I have ever seen in Wowwiki. Hes going out of his way now to bash the Horde. Zarnks 19:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Actuallly its a Horde darkspear Troll and an independent Azerothian blood elf (I.E. the ones that became the playable portion of the race), and an independent naga (I.E. the blood elves and naga left behind on Azeroth, that weren't under any orders by Kael, or Illidan), there was no concept of "Illidari" back then actually, the artwork was made specifically for Alliance & Horde Compendium, 2003, and its copyrighted to Blizzard and that book, Metzen didn't put the artwork up on his site until after teh release of that book. Again its unclear why he gave it that title. PLease get your facts straight.Baggins 19:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Future race ideas edits

I believe we have warned you in the past about editing Future race ideas. I suggest you read the introduction to the article, if you can't follow the policy. Then you will be banned again. Edits are only to be made after it has been discussed and agreed upon in the talk page.Baggins 22:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait was wrong with my edits. Why aren't the tuskarr point light green. They are actually allied with the Horde or part of it. I say thats definetly more of a green point then a lot of other green points. Kolkar isn't any more of a red point then the Alliance fighting corrupted furblogs. As Kolkar are hated by other centaur tribes. Zarnks 23:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Give page numbers, and direct references

We've warned you about this before, but unless you give a page number, a direct link to the material that you want to add to an article (and if its relevant) its not allowed in an article. I.E vague references to it can be found in "such and such" without telling people where to look in the source you point them too is just as bad as making up information or speculating. Please corret this habit of yours, or it will end up in another ban, and I'd rather not do that.Baggins 02:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Orcs don't express a hatred for all slavery but they certainly don't like being enslaved themselves,having friends enslaved or orc slavery altogether. This questline shows at least some orcs don't like it. [3]. Zarnks 02:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think what we have here is mixed opinions from some orcs supporting slavery, some that support if only their own kind isn't involved, others don't support it at all for any race. We don't know the percentages of how much of it goes on, but we certainly know that it does.Baggins 02:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

A plea for a ceasefire

Please. We have been bickering pointlessly over Gilthares Firebough. Please let the issue go. There is no need for further arguement. I am loosing my sanity over this trivial matter. If you want to make any other arguments over him, please post it here, so we don't clutter up his talk page any more than it is already.--Blayaden (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem as we avoided an edit war. but if you want to relocate here. Go ahead. I feel it should mentioned in his page that he may be a blood elf and simply put down his race as elven. Zarnks (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be in the speculation part of his page, but his race should still be listed as high elf. Feel free to mention that he had a "blood elf" model pre-BC and that he wears red clothes; but it doesn't seem enough to say he is one. Astromancer Darnarian is a different matter because of his blood elf voice and unusually harsh personality, and is listed as both.--Blayaden (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright the article is fine and cited now. Zarnks (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Continuing from the High elf talk page, enough is enough. All you have been doing is raising pointless controversy and bias. You have done nothing but push buttons and show how bigoted you are. You seriously need to reconsider your actions, because if you do not stop and show some NEUTRALITY, I will be forced to report you; and I'm sure the Admins would LOVE to see you again.--Blayaden (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Bigoted high elves are fictional. Cool down. I haven't written anything negative about high elves in the article so I fail to see what I'm doing wrong. Zarnks (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


Recently I have been in a transition period between medications, so I have been unusually irritable and eisily frustrated. My actions have not been appropriate, and under normal circumstances, I wouldn't have over reacted like I have. I offer my SENCERE apologies Zarnks, and hope you can forgive me on the matter.

Due to my condition, I have decided to stay away from the wiki untill I am feeling better, since my irritibility and impatience have compromised my behavior. Again I offer my sencerest apologies.--Blayaden (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Its okay I can be pretty stupid as well. Zarnks (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

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