User talk:Garm21370

Welcome!
Hello, Garm, and welcome to the Wowpedia! Thank you for your contributions, and we encourage you to continue contributing!

Some useful notes:
 * The things to do category has lots of things to keep you busy!


 * Some Wowpedians are also very often on our IRC Channel, chat.freenode.net, #wowwiki.


 * As a community it is easier to get large amounts of maintenance and community projects done in teams - we like to encourage each wiki-user to join one or two. Check out Community teams for more info!


 * Wowpedia isn't an absolute democracy, but many decisions are voted on. See a list of votes in progress.


 * Check out the site guidelines and policies!

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wowpedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, just ask on the relevant talk page, or visit the Wowpedia Forums.

Again, welcome!  --Pcj (T•C) 13:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of information in articles or Future race ideas
You are completely missing the point of the topic.

If a bit of cited information is a support for Alliance, and also a negative for the Horde it belongs in both sections. If a bit of information is both support or negative for both horde and alliance it can go in both places. Its not redundant.

For example Blizzard has stated that most Pandaren have closer mind-set to the Alliance than they do with horde, so that automatically makes that fact a dark negative to the horde, thus its existence as a dark red in the horde section (where as it was a bright green in the alliance section, its the balance of making sure when information that is positive for one race, is a negatives for the other race). Its not opinion its a written fact. On a side note there are races that are said to be more Horde-alligned than Alliance aligned that fact becomes a negative for the Alliance due to this balancing act. The trick is not make up why one race should be in one race or another, but just stating facts as how and why Blizzard has said they are said to be better for one race or another.

Removal of cited information, when it is used properly, is viewed as vandalism under the TOS and Wowwiki policies. So be careful not to break the policies.Baggins 21:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Will try. Garm 21:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, and glad to have you here :). You have added interesting stuff to the articles.Baggins 21:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I just find redundancy to annoy people. Garm 21:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Garm I didn't make that stuff, up the reference to Malfurion in more recent times (just before WoW, and before he was put into a coma) not likeing the naga, is a cited source of material. Again the job of the editors is not to "fix" what they think is wrong, but to take quotes as is. If you want to combine points, to clean up, that's one thing, but try not to remove information in its entirety if its a quote, and your also welcome to add the quoation marks to them.Baggins 21:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Didn't see that. :( Garm 21:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries, :). Like I said if you feel you can combine points where two points just expand on teh same idea, feel free to combine them together. Also feel free to add quotation marks to the quotes, if you like. I was in a hurry and left them out.Baggins 21:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You've just given me a million-dollar idea! :P Garm 21:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll be the judge of that. If it looks like your going overboard on something, we'll let you know, ;). Just try to avoid combinging things together that are related, but one is a positive, or question mark, and one is a negative to try to "cancel" them out. It doesn't work that way LOL.Baggins 21:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit War warning
Sorry I just had a chance to look at the history on Future race ideas I see that you were involved in an edit war earlier with Sandwhichman, Vorbis. Now, I have to warn you that that action is not tolerated, and I have warned him as well. Edit wars are not allowed.

Secondly we pointed out in the intro that new races and changes should be discussed in the talk page and agreed upon by fellow editors before it went into the article. You broke this policy or ignored it, thus leading to the edit war. It has forced us admins through discussion on how to "spell the policy out" more directly. There may be further revisions by fellow admin staff in the future, to further warn and hopefully prevent the breach of policy for that page, to avoid further edit wars in the future.

In both cases this is only a warning. If you had followed what the intro page had said to begin with there would be no need for this warning. Please do not do it again.

For now you are not to edit the future race page at all, but you can discuss ideas for changes in the talk page. If its agreed upon by majority, an admin will add your ideas into the article.

Sorry, about accidently put this on your user page, previously.--Baggins 20:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Garm this is your second warning. First off removing this discussion without acklowdeging it is considered rude according to policy, WP:TALK. I don't know if you read this before you decided to edit the Future race pages without consensus, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. But again I stress do not edit that page again. Only discuss in the talk page, and consensus will decide if there is a valid reason to add the material to the page, and an admin will do it for you. Sorry to have to limit you like this, but its to prevent you from breaking policies, that may lead to being listed as a suspect or vandal, and leading to bans. This restraint is for your own good.


 * If you do not acknowledge this and/or continue to edit Future Race Ideas after you have been told only to edit the talk page, there will be consequences. This is my last warning, next stage is more severe.--Baggins 20:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the length of time that this lasts? Garm 20:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Unforseeable future. As it goes this goes for anyone who tries to add new races without consensus, as they would be breaking the policy, and they will be warned about it.Baggins 20:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If there was no edit war with sandwich, and I misread through the history, I appologize.


 * Though I must warn you that you have caused Vorbis, other staff, and editors to have to revert your additions previously, only for you to revert their reverts, and then for them to revert again. That is edit warring, so try to avoid that. Especially do not revert adminstrator decisions, take it to a talk page and discuss it with the admin first. The admin will decided to change it back if your reasons are sound, and correctly cited.


 * However the policy to not edit the page, or add anything without consensus is still in effect for the seeable future.Baggins 20:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Garm, just to add to this: though I appreciate your expansive imagination, optimism and devotion you do have a tendency to not listen properly or else go a bit OTT. As you say yourself: if you "read it over" when it comes to page rules and exersize more caution and level-headedness when editing you won't go far wrong. Here's hoping you don't get any more of these messages. ;) --


 * I went back and rechecked I do appoligize to you for accusing you of edit warring with sandwichman, however it does look like you forced vorbis to revert you twice in the recent history, due to you not following the page rules. That would be an edit war.Baggins 21:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I guess I could wait till Wrath for the next edit on that page. Garm 00:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You wait until we give the go ahead again. When we do, that doesn't mean you can just edit it willy nilly. If you repeat your actions again, and don't follow the rules you could lose your editing priviliges in a much worse way. Beyond that continue to discuss ideas in the talk:future race ideas page, and have fun. That's how that article was designed to be edited and the policy for that page. Baggins 00:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The idea I had was to wait until valuable information was given, discuss whether or not it was speculatory, then edit it. Of course, it's going to take a long while for Wrath to get there. Garm 01:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

THe fanfiction stuff
Try not to edit pages without permission(i dont mind if you fixing typo or templete)Thank you! 02:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)