User talk:MyMindWontQuiet/Archive1

Archived : 10 / 04 / 2017

Illidan's demon
Hello! Could u elaborate on what u meant when u added this? Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but Gul'dan wasn't a demon nor did he "whispered" to Illidan before consuming his skull. --Mordecay (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi! So this is all speculation, but here's where it comes from. My point was that Illidan's transformation was not triggered by the absorbtion of a demon (like the theory above suggested with Azzinoth being the one that Illidan absorbed) : Illidan transformed after he absorbed what remained of Gul'dan's energies. This definitely means that the combination of all the demonic energies he had in him (the gifts of Sargeras + possibly Azzinoth or whatever demon(s) he consumed + Gul'dan's energies) is what transformed him. This is what I meant by "all the demon souls he absorbed", but maybe I should replace this with "all the demonic energies he had absorbed" kind of like Socrethar for example who was turned into a demon by "the gift of fel" and not by consuming demon souls. As for the whispering, we know that Gul'dan communicated with Ner'zhul through his skull, so Gul'dan could definitely whisper, and thus the skull still had (a portion of) Gul'dan's soul inside. Thus when Illidan absorbed his skull, and thus his soul or whatever, I imagine it would join all the other demon souls Illidan absorbed as a collective, my point is that Illidan may not have one single demon inside him (Azzinoth) [proven by the fact that this single demon was not even enough to trigger his transformation] but a sort of amalgam of demon souls. My point is that Illidan's inner demon is not just a demon called Joe, it's a mix of Joe and Bob and Robert etc. There's also the possibility that he has no "inner demon" at all since he's become a demon himself, contrary to normal demon hunters who are still mortals with a demon inside them. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Wowhead links
Hello! When adding references, u don't need to add wowhead links but wowpedian ones like this. --Mordecay (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey. If they don't exist, is there an easy/automated way to create them ? -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * U probably noticed these Help:Quest articles, Help:NPC articles & Help:Item articles/Preload for example, but there is also a java util for creating quests if u wanna give it a try. But don't worry if u link to non-existent pages. Someone will create them. --Mordecay (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the java util looks quite fine. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 10:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Life
Yep, that article about Life was definitively weird, and when I checked who actually wrote it, guess what, your friend VisionOfPerfection was a major contributor to it! Still, even if the writing style is weird, he often adds plenty of information that are still canon and interesting. So please, next time, could you try to sort through the information and spread it around if needed rather than just to delete everything? From the material you cut they were several points that could have been added to the Immortal, Elemental and Monk articles instead, for example.

These last weeks we've been over the fel, void, arcane, demon, necrolyte, affliction and demonology (lore) articles. Might be worth checking out other articles Vision contributed to in the past years, like Light, Divine, Soul, Mana, Chaos energy, God, Demigod, Black arts, and so on.Xporc (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I knew these sentences sounded familiar ! Yup, I tried keeping only what was directly related to Life, the force, itself. Because otherwise we could go on a thousand tangents and link life to everything, like that article did. I'll look for the interesting tidbits later, as you can see i've commented out a few things I'd like to go back and re-add, except in an organized format this time. Will check the other articles also. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And it's done. I'm very happy with the result. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup we're getting there Xporc (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Plurals and links
Hey dude, you don't need to write Wardens for example, you can just write Wardens and it'll still work the same. And look cleaner. Also, could you please try to give more accurate references names instead of "0" and "1"? Xporc (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey. I don't actually write these manually, I use the "edit" button (not "edit source") then press '[' twice and enter "Warden", it makes the link for me I believe. Is there a way to prevent that ?
 * As for the references, they are not mine, somebody else put them there, I just moved them. I'm not yet familiar enough with references to try to change them, I personally always use original names. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry about that then. I always use "Edit source" because IMO it's the only way to write clean sourcecode, since I'm a programmer at heart, eheh Xporc (talk) 08:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Bloodstone
Hey boss, the item names should correspond with in-game names which Kira's Bloodstone does not. There are two different ids so there should be two pages, like it was before your update. --Mordecay (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, yes this is what I had ended up doing. Kira's Bloodstone is a lore page about Kira's bloodstone, while Bloodstone (quest) is the (quest) item. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yep I noticed it and it is wrong because it is not consistent with in-game names. Kira's Bloodstone should be Bloodstone (quest item) because it is one. It is actually the drop u need to collect for the related quest. The second item (with the prefix quest) is also a quest item but it is a clickable item u use during another quest. U can still add the lore u wrote to one page or another but the name need to be fixed. --Mordecay (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Wait, so we have:
 * Kira's Bloodstone


 * Bloodstone (quest)


 * Bloodstone (quest item)
 * Is this what you meant/wanted ? -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Kira's Bloodstone and Bloodstone (quest item) have the same ID and should be one page only. Xporc (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * ^^ --Mordecay (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is correct now. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Noice! --Mordecay (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Horsemen
Hey again, why u removed 1. the speculation of their possible return 2. Skyhold bit ?--Mordecay (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, so 1. this is not speculation so I included it in the main article at the top, 2. I don't see why the article on the Four Horsemen should have anything to do with Skyhold. It was being used as an introduction to the datamining of the original Horsemen, so I just skipped directly to that part, that's what's interesting and relevant, not Skyhold and its NPCs. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, 1. I'm blind. It is confirmed for Riverdare and may or may not hold true for the rest of them. Also the book didn't say that the Horsemen are spiritually linked to Kel'Thuzad. 2. Yep, it mentioned Skyhold, but the meaning or focus was on how Nazgrim and Thoras would probably never be Horsemen and what would their role be if Blizz went with their original idea. And that's interesting idea, methinks. --Mordecay (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. Yeah "spiritually linked" was bad wording, wasn't sure how to put it. But then how would you explain that they returned in WotLK ? 2. I see, I'll try to reword that. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Blizz didn't elaborate on how exactly they managed to return (IIRC) so let's not speculate about it. But anything's possible! Thanks, champ! --Mordecay (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thal'kiel
Quit fighting with Mordecay. Remember WP:3RR. Edit summaries are not talk pages.-- 03:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We weren't fighting, and I believe we're done, but true if I knew there would've been that many exchanges I would've taken it to the talk page. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey, so the page and u say that Archimonde wasn't the leader but u added: "Thal'kiel was a ruler of Argus alongside Velen and Archimonde" So it should be Kil'jaeden, Archimonde joined them afterwards. U also wrote that u get what I meant by adding two bulletpoints - one for artifact-reveal change, the second for the research but u still shuffle things? And Archimonde gliding his skull is there twice now (+ wording's bad bc it was on whose orders not who did it.). It is like u even don't read what I added and edited. --Mordecay (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, weird, I did mean and wrote Kil'jaeden, not Archimonde, that was my point, one of the reverts must've shuffled things around. And yes it was on his orders, I guess the wording wasn't explicit enough. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Image policies
See here: "Fan art images should always be marked as such, especially when used in an article, and they should not take precedence over official artwork." Xporc (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! couldn't find it. However this is not valid in this situation. This says official artwork > fan art, but here we have an in-game screenshot, not an official artwork. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe in-game screenshots are more "official" than fanarts, and since Sandwichman is an admin I think he agreed with that :o Xporc (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know, the in-game world is not exactly canon either, the proportions were stated to be distorted for gameplay reasons and sometimes they don't represent the lore at all, for example the Vale of Eternal Blossoms in-game zone does not feature the Temple of Kotmogu, which, in the lore, is part of the Vale. In this case, in-game Ulduar is I believe a bit smaller than it should be for obvious reasons, and this fanart truly captures how huge Ulduar really is, my point is that it's not misleading in any way, and quite accurate. User:Sandwichman2448 what do you think ? (does tagging someone send them a notification?) -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In-game content is still more canon than fanart :/ Xporc (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes true. I'm fine either way -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Fanart is 0% canonical unless it is officially co-opted by Blizzard (has happened). It's even lower than the RPG (which at least came from Blizzard and used to be canon). The game is distorted canon, but still official. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I just thought it looked better on that page. Really sorry. I won't do it again.

That's ok man don't worry :o I enjoy fanarts as well and that pic is neat. EDIT: Oh wait, I mixed things up. Guess you were talking about the class halls thing? Xporc (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah - CaptDeadeyeMC

Storm dragons
I understand your problems with calling them a dragonflight, but that's also how we described the nightmare dragonflight and the plagued dragonflight even though they are not true dragonflights either, I just wanted to add some internal consistencies Xporc (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I noticed those too, none of them were described as dragonflights technically (except Plagued apparently), they are either just individual groups or different species, but I don't have the courage to change it all. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Dagran II
The dwarves were arguing what will happen to the Council now that Magni is back. But Magni is not really back. Nothing says / contradicts that Dagran won't inherit the two nations. + Combining info, in general, is not to remove it but state that X was the case, until Y said Z. --Mordecay (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It says that even Magni, the one true legitimate ruler of Ironforge, wont, and cant, take it back, because the Three Hammer is here to stay. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly! There's nothing on their role regarding to Dagran. That is covered in other book - which u are reverting. --Mordecay (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Magni is the right ruler of Ironforge, but he can't rule, because of the Three Hammer (which doesn't matter since it turns out that he doesn't want to anyway). Dagran - without Magni - would be the right ruler too but, again, he would not be able to rule it, because of the Three Hammer. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "...Now Ironforge is governed by representatives of its three most powerful clans. This arrangement will come to an end if the heir presumptive, Dagran Thaurissan II, achieves his majority and takes control of the kingdom..."
 * "She brought her newborn son Dagran, the heir to two kingdoms, with her."
 * "His son [Dagran's], however, remains the acknowledged heir to the throne of Ironforge." --Mordecay (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not disagreeing with that. It was/is indeed governed by "representatives of its three most powerful clans", but that was solely because Magni was absent. Dagran was/is the heir to throne, but that's only because Magni was absent (Dagran would've become ruler only after Magni died, or retired). However, Magni is back in Legion. And Magni is the true ruler of Ironforge, not Dagran (not until the former died/retired and the latter reached maturity). Yet the Three Hammer is still there. Because he can't take the kingdom back, as explained in the comics. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Try to cool it
There is a limit to how confrontational someone is allowed to be on Wowpedia. Please review the disruptive editing policy and reduce your level of hostility.-- 23:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe you are misled, Aqua and I are calmly discussing the matter on the talk page, there is no ill-meaning anywhere and I always try to be polite, while you usually have no issue being rude even for small, short matters. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I was speaking more in reference to the general trend of your behavior. You seem to genuinely want to improve things. However, you can be a bit too quick to make sweeping changes and a bit too insistent that your way is the better way. There is no way that so many pages needed complete rewrites. Sometimes, your rewording becomes so great that it overpowers whatever the original point of the page was. There is such a thing as over-organizing things. I talked to the other admins and I was told that you calling me rude for giving you what I thought was a fair warning might be the last straw for at least a temporary ban. I don't hate you. I don't want you gone. I want you to rein in your over-enthusiasm. So, try to cool it.-- 20:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * About the rude matter, this I am sad about. It would be so very nice if people could talk about such things without interpreting them as insults or taking them personally. You are rude, often, and taking a look at your talk page archives and IIRC administrator nomination seems to confirm that many other people have thought this before about you. But please understand, that this was not intended as an insult. This was the exact same thing as saying "this tree is green" or "the weather is cold". But somehow when the adjective is unpleasant to someone, they take it personally. My point is there is a difference between pointing out that "you have often been rude before" and "you're terrible, I don't like you, you're rude". I did not say the latter, absolutely not, I meant the former, and I really don't think it's wrong to say such things, as long as they are not intended to harm and are at least somewhat anchored in reality. I don't think this warrants any sorts of punishment, the right thing would be to talk about it, if you wish.


 * As for the rest, I understand and I'll try to think about what you said. This comes as a complete surprise to me because never, ever, before, has anyone made such a remark to me, neither on my talk page nor even as a small comment during an edit. On the contrary, if you take a look above you'll see that there was positive feedback to this. If you could point towards a specific example, maybe it would help. Perhaps the one that made you want to come here.


 * The thing that I do not understand however is the "level of hostility" you mentioned, this is what sounded weird to me. I am so very open to discussion, and I like exchanging very much. Open a talk page, and people will come. Usually it's Aquamonkey or Mordecay that intervene, and each side will bring in arguments and link sources, and sometimes I'm right and they're wrong, sometimes they're right and I'm wrong, but either way, someone learned something new. This is the amazing thing, and it's due to the wowpedia community and the nature of talk pages that allow easy communication. Being wrong allows you to learn new stuff. I cannot stress enough how I love exchanging, discussing, and learning things. When I bring stuff and link to things, I am not trying to crush my opponents or whatever else you think I'm doing, I'm exchanging, the exact same way they link sources. I just don't see any other way how this could be done, these are called debates, and they are not hostile in nature, nor am I. I have said many times before that people should not get heated or take things personally when they are just discussing a matter : the goal is to reach the truth. And this always succeeds. The latest example of this is the Cenarius thing. I think it was Aquamonkey that brought the most arguments, and he was right. I was not hostile, no one was, and through a long process of exchanging and backing up arguments, we learned something new. Or the Chronicle 2 stuff, everyone calmly explained their thoughts and point of view, and we all reached a conclusion. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Just read the policy I linked and self-reflect. If you are as pleasant as you say that you are and if you continue to be a productive member of this community, then you may stay.-- 01:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I think hostility might not quite be the proper term, but perhaps aggressive editing and minor edit-warring. While "be bold" is encouraged by WP policies, edit summaries are not the place for discussion. If there is a conflict of opinion on a particular topic, IMO it should be taken to the talk page with a reversion to a pre-debate version of a page or at least a neutral compromise until the topic can be resolved. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * See also: Be bold in updating pages, the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and the Three revert rule.-- 03:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I think MyMindWontQuiet is a valuable member of the community and I'd hate to see him banned. He's so much better to work with than people like VisionOfPerfection and he's able to work on several different topics, while many other editors are only focused on one single topic (trolls, Scarlet Crusade, etc.) Xporc (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * MyMindWontQuiet is better to work with than VisionOfPerfection. That is true.-- 19:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Dimensius
What was previously an edit war on Dimensius the All-Devouring with his old account, u changed it back, aka voidlord vs. void lord. IIRC, it didn't reach any conclusion. --Mordecay (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I forgot that there was an edit war, I just stumbled upon Xal'atath's quote again and she clearly says "our masters", which means the void lords, not voidlords. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

My edit you have reverted
Why have you reverted my edit on Argus? As far as I can see, that image does not exist there.--Adûnâi (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You made a duplicate file, it was already uploaded @File:Kil'jaeden Ship Argus.png -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the clarification! I thought if there was no image on the page, it had not been uploaded at all, as that page is clearly the place for it.--Adûnâi (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)--Adûnâi (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah you couldn't have known! -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Cenarion Circle or Dreamweavers
I have no idea which one is true, but 95% of the wiki refers to the Legion druid order as the Cenarion Circle. Not sure that's true tho Xporc (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's never explicitly stated (they always use "the order" or "our order") but I think it's the Circle.
 * - https://wow.gamepedia.com/Quest:To_The_Dreamgrove - "Arch Druid Greathoof is the leader of the druids there." & "the Druids of Val'sharah"
 * - https://wow.gamepedia.com/Quest:Ascending_The_Circle - " You are already more powerful than many senior members of our order." (that's Greathoof speaking)
 * - Broll also says he accepts joining "the druidic order" but he was already a member of the Cenarion Circle, so there 1) is a difference between your order and the Cenarion Circle 2) or it's just a mistake from the quest writer.
 * Not sure what's the difference with the Dreamweavers anyway.

Council
The Council was "reformed" and becomes New Council of Tirisfal, tho. Which quest mentions it? --Mordecay (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * True, forgot they changed names! -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)