User talk:Tetsuo8657184

Profession tables
Excellent project! -- Jeoh 17:39, 2 January 2007 (EST)

dont create completely empty pages
there is no need for pages like Magtheridon's Lair Loot that are completely empty! -watchout 15:22, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Gems pages
I'm trying to figure out why you put the bc-section tags on all of these gems. Aren't they are part of the game entirely now? Meaning someone without the expansion is able to acquire them. This would make them NOT unique to BC, correct? --ShardeeDetheroc 22:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was in the process of placing the tags on ALL the jewel pages. They are only acquired from things in the Outlands and can only be used in items from the Outlands. There are no non- items that have sockets. That was my thinking.
 * I see that you were adding them to all the gem pages :) Maybe this will make sense. Expansions are simply adding content to the game. Think of them as content patches. When something like Dire Maul comes out in a content patch, we don't say that "This section concerns content exclusive to Patch..." It's not exclusive to the patch, it's part of the game. While not everyone can access it (if you're not the proper level), it's still not off limits. You are correct in saying that these items can almost entirely be accessed in BC areas and by people with the expansion, but it's still not exclusive to the expansion. The items themselves are still accessible to people that don't have the expansion, even if they can't necessarily use them in sockets. The AH is the best example. You can buy and sell them on the auction house even if you can't make them or socket them. Regardless of the (in my opinion) unwise placement of the tag, it's also very redundant. You can strategically put this tag in with the jewelcrafting tradeskill sections or the informational sections on sockets. Similarly, you don't need to put these tags on every single item drop from an instance that is exclusive to BC. Just put the tag in the top of the tree for these areas. This is my interpretation at least for what that tool is designed for. If you're still not sure or not convinced, discuss it on the Template:Bc-section page. --ShardeeDetheroc 23:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sig fnork
Heya... there seems to be something in your signature that changes the font on everything following it, like you forgot to close a tag in it. Could I talk you into fixing that, please? 90% of the Talk:Death_knight is your signature's font due to that, as is this message. :-p Thanks... --Azaram (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was using IE 6, 7, and Firefox 3, and it did it in all of them, but it seems to be fixed now, one way or another... --Azaram (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)