User talk:Gabrirt/Archive01

Welcome to Wowpedia!

Hello, Gabrirt, and welcome to Wowpedia, the Warcraft wiki! Thank you for your contributions, and we heartily encourage you to continue contributing!

Some links you may find useful:
 * The things to do category has lots of things to keep you busy!
 * Check out the Community portal for some useful editors' links.
 * Many Wowpedians frequent our IRC Channel, on chat.freenode.net, #wowpedia.
 * Finally, please check out the site guidelines and policies!

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wowpedian! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes as this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, or need help, just ask on the relevant talk page, or visit the site forums.

Feel free to create a new topic on the Wowpedia forums if you need help with anything!

Templates
If you do not have the time to make a proper change to templates, please do not make a haphazard one. You could always come back to it later when you do, or add a comment of what you'd like to do on the talk page and if someone sees it, they could do it for you. 21:06, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Just so you know so you don't go wild with the xpak icons... they will be removed, we're only using the to mark additions, to show they are to come. When Cataclysm goes live they are to be removed. 06:06, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Wikify
I'm going to ask you to please stop overly wikifing articles... I'm not exactly sure why you want to npc every name you come across, but please don't do the same names throughout the article 3-10 times. 03:26, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * And I don't know who you are, but I'm telling you to STOP overly wikifying articles, I don't care if you want to npc the names in the articles, but DON'T do it to the same name throughout the article several times over. I will not be going through your edits to fix YOUR overly wikifying ways, I will simply revert them, because you have yet to learn and you will not learn if I fix everything for you. 00:38, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Gabrirt, let me explain something to you. The person you are arguing with is Coobra, an administrator at wowwiki for a long time now. If he tells you to stop, you stop. Period. End of story.--Sheffi (talk) 21:18, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * He still really likes that template, but I will ignore it if it was arbitrarily agreed that one usage per name was okay. It is still pointless.-- 22:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the template because I can see the image without enter into the article. It turn the navigation in wowpedia easier. I don't know why anyone would like to remove this facility.

Your opinion is desired
Hey, we're pretty much settled on leaving Wikia, but I wanted to see if you had any input. Thanks. -- 02:32, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Where is...
Your source for definitively completing Fenran's name as Fenran Thaurissan? You forgot to leave your reference.--Mondoblasto (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Refereces? err... Well, for me it is presumed...  What argument you have to contradict it?? Moira was Bronzebeard... But now is Thaurissan. Both are affiliated within the Dark Iron clan, so why not? If you really think it's wrong go ahead... I will not stop you. (Gabrirt (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC))
 * It's not my argument. Did you check the Discussion page for Fenran?  "I will not (Edit war) you." Well that's certainly good to know.  But indeed, that's why we have Discussion and Talk pages, so that doesn't happen in the first place.--Mondoblasto (talk) 05:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The exact name is now moot, as the page has been updated by someone who saw the info the the latest novel. If you're going to be changing pages like that, the argument "Well, for me it is presumed" is not exactly... accurate information to add to an info wiki.  If you want to add something like that, insert a  tag first and then add your thoughts.--Mondoblasto (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Alliance & Horde Information Sidebars
The Alliance & Horde Sidebars are not to be messed with, i see you post unnecessary people in seconday leaders list and non capital cities in city list, please stop doing this to Alliance and Horde or i will have to get an admin involved, be smart, think about before posting and stop messing with them. Thank You --ArbiterX122591 (talk) 05:02 December 6th, 2010 (UTC)
 * For me the valid and aceptable page was [].

Can you explain better [|this monstrus "undo"] of my good works in the page Alliance? Stromgarde and the Wildhammer base isn't important (note: the alliance is more well based than the horde)? Vannddar (General Stormpike) isn't the leader of the stormpike guard? The Gilneans aren't Worgen-Human cursed? What you will say more?! Gilnean isn't a languague? Also the Qiraj serves the Pantheon to you? Reversing, and the next time don't just copy and paste and, please, do a more descent rewiew.(Gabrirt (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC))

First of all if you even played the beta, you would know the Worgen are actually Gilnean people who have been affected by the Curse and the people you put in the secondary leaders are not secondary leaders at all there not even that important, leave the post alone or the admins will end up blocking you from the page, cause we gotta keep cleaning the mess you make --ArbiterX122591 (talk) 21;48 December 6th, 2010 (UTC)

Ok Gabrirt, this is a warning about your editing warring... YOU best starting talking it out instead of pushing the article to how you see things without discussion. Don't know why the Horde and Alliance articles have to be so heavily disputed... 22:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Custom signature
Here is your answer : Signature - Custom signatures

Ask if you need any help

13:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just making an hand link to historical proposes on my signature. 20:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Opinion
I've been trying to get opinions from those that use NPC in articles, and so if you could please visit Forum:Abuse of Template:Npc on links and give us your opinion on the matter, that would be appreciated. Thank you, 21:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Buckled under the onslaught
Buckle - to yield, surrender, or give way to another. Or to put it more simply, it means they got their asses kicked. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes 2
It's been noted that you're removing line breaks from the last parameter on infoboxes and the }} such as on this article. Please don't do that. There's a reason that break is there, it's already been seen that other editors changing things end up breaking templates due to this (as they didn't see what they did or what have you). Thank you, 03:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ↑ . 22:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh?? I'm not removing the line that you talk.(Gabrirt (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC))
 * Well, it doesn't just happen... certainly not happening with any other user.
 * Recent pages you've done it to:
 * Horde Expedition
 * Warsong Offensive
 * Magatha Grimtotem
 * And I know it's not automatic, cause you didn't do it to Valiance Keep or Valgardeon your latest edits. 20:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And again.-- 21:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove, I moved them to cut one line in the article... But if it's about this moving I didn't understand what's the difference about the the users' edition. They break templates easily this way? I'm not sure if this is truth.Gabrirt (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is more organized if they are on separate lines. You were asked not to, and yet you are still doing it. I'm seeing a pattern.-- 22:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Since this was brought up again... I like to remind you once again to stop this practice, now that you've finally admitted to doing it. 07:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm only going to ask nicely one last time... STOP removing the line break that separates the last parameter of an infobox from the }} at the end. Why is this is hard for you? 05:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Compirmise
Hey we need to make a compirmise for the Leaders, im actually tired always having to come on remove people who dont belong on there .. Response and hopefully we can work out things like Men and not Children. Thanks !! (ArbiterX122591 (talk)04:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC))

Eh?

 * At first I was waiting you, Arbiter, to put the why you as removing every content that I put at first. I was anger as you as you just apparently undid various of my edits without checking every point. Eventually our persistence led us to several edit wars in various articles that can be worthy of an article only about it.

Anyone who review all historical alterations on Horde, Alliance and also Alliance-Horde war, and maybe in probably others, can see this and our comments. I believe that the one who REMOVE INFORMATION must start the discussion and say the whys of the removal(s), because the point of a encyclopedia is give information.

I think that you already contradict yourself most than once and for unknown reasons changed your opinion about " deserves stay in the list", also ignoring my discuss.

And now you are so sad because you may think that I don't discuss, or don't like do it or that I don't like you.

A. I like discuss, but "B." and so I prefer use "believe me", unfortunately... B. I'm not fast to write a text, so I avoid stay minutes and minutes (maybe only this post more than one or two dozen) to write this. C. In fact I don't like really you because of everything that I'm stating here, but it could easily change if the things turn to a right path.

I almost declared war officially in a moment of anger, but I could avoid be this conflicting or aggressive, thing that I'm not. We aren't really enemies, we were staying as rivals, but if we can understand each other I hope that over. I hope not been exaggerated in what I speak.

So, state what you have and start to discuss if really necessary...

(Gabrirt (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC))

Old god forces
Thanks i'm still trying to improve it and i REALLY need to work on the prhasing, but thanks for starting the article--Ashbear160 (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Horde article
I am informing all recent contributors of the Horde article that it has been locked for cleanup. We welcome any and all discussion on the Horde talk page once cleanup has begun. This is to insure everyone who has been editing the article will be happy with it, or at least meet a compromise on certain subjects, so the edit warring can be put to an end. Thank you, 19:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Redirects
I have been noticing that you create redirects so you can poetically or abbreviatedly link pages from passages that you type. This is unnecessary. Please review Help:Piped link to avoid unnecessary redirects in the future.-- 03:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The redirects that I create have sense. I know those shortcurts, but if there is a page called "Gnel Vangun" and both names are uniques, why not create a redirect to make a shotcurt for the page?Gabrirt (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You should not create links only to make them redirects. Your reasoning only works as long as they stay unique, but it could be discussed.-- 00:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Same as before. Why not just make a piped link if linking them in such a way is so important to you (not that I personally agree with your love of infoboxes)? Every unique name does not need a redirect.-- 03:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Invasion of Gilneas
Where did you get these numbers? If you made them up, stop doing so. If not, please tell me where.-- 17:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I get from the same article on wowwiki, just check. Also don't remove if you don't have a better source.Gabrirt (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And where did THEY get their numbers? Do they have a source, or did they just make them up? The argument of "don't remove unless you have a better source" doesn't hold water if the source you have can't be verified in the first place. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sincerely I don't know why someone would give to himself the work of making up this. When I see it, I consider that someone have get the information on some source, having or not put the source on the reflist (I didn't check this).
 * Also you have a better idea of the invasion? Shoud I move the numbers to a speculation section on the end of the page? (Gabrirt (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC))


 * If there's no source, then the numbers shouldn't be in the article. It's not speculation based on available information, it's just made-up. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you prof that was made up? The fact of don't having source (for now) don't implies a made up. I can move to a spec section if you think that wold be better.Gabrirt (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think such specific numbers are made up. Where would they come from?-- 00:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And this is our stalemate. Coincident, if we consider the result of the conflict. I get it from wowwiki and, in this way, someone have to check the rival wiki to see if there are source. For now I don't known of what came from, but no one can proof if the made up existed or no. Maybe some player have entered in the game mechanics or someway estimated the numbers? The Gnomish submarines can be counted, no?
 * Because the lack of known source until someone check wowwiki, I think that should be considerated spec..Gabrirt (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Or, more accurately, it should be considered "made up" and not included at all. It's not speculation unless you have something to base it on. Anyway, I checked the Wowpedia page, and that particular piece of information isn't sourced. In fact, there's only one source on the entire page, and it has nothing to do with the number of units. Checking the page's history, most of the information on the page was added by the same person, who didn't cite anything. So basically, it boils down to this: either he made it up to pad out the page, or he didn't make it up but didn't explain where he got the information from. And since it's been on Wowpedia since December and that same information hasn't shown up here in the interim, it suggests that there is no source for those numbers and he just came up with it on his own. But hey, if you want to go to Wowpedia and ask him on his talk page, go right ahead. In the meantime, we have to assume that they have no basis in fact and thus no basis in the article. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Wowpedia is a wiki, Wowpedia a wiki, anyone is capable of adding anything to articles. As such we nor they source other wikis. So stating a wiki had this info, so you transferred it over, is not a valid reason to add things. 01:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit wars
Could you please be a little less controversial and discuss your changes a little more? I would really appreciate it. Thank you in advance.-- 05:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ???? Please explain yourself first.Gabrirt (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are having a lot of trouble keeping some of your edits on various pages, and you are very enthusiastic about adding them back. You also seem to have some stylistic preferences that differ from the norm. Such things must be discussed first. Just talk about more of your intended changes on talk pages, and forum pages for larger-scale changes.-- 05:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I ask you again. This time with the Alliance and Alliance of Lordaeron pages. Discuss your changes or action may be taken.-- 03:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You check the "View history" tab? I believe that all explanation necessary sometimes can be putted there.Gabrirt (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit summaries are not the place for a debate.-- 04:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And if someone have something against the edit and it's not convinced by the explanation, create a discussion. That's always have been my idea: Edit>Disagree?...

...Yes>Discuss. ...No>Get your way.Gabrirt (talk) 04:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle exists, but you are having more of an edit war. You are disagreeing and not discussing too. You are not the initial "bold" editor here.-- 04:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So, every this time this wiki had this policy (I don't read so much policies)? But I'm not sure if I understood. The bold make and alteration, the "annoying one" undone and so the bold most start the disscuss? Is that the order???Gabrirt (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea is that if an edit is questioned, then a consensus is sought, rather than just reverting back and forth. Saying that all people that disagree with you are annoying is not a good sign.-- 05:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never said that. This was just an example of anyone ("bold") whom edit an article could feel about have his alterations undone. I never said that I was into this little history. Try to pay more attention before accuse/defame anyone of a such thing.Gabrirt (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Calling someone who reverts the "annoying one" is still not a good practice.-- 13:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * (Sigh...) It was just an example that not necessarily is about an real situation... Didn't I explained this? And after all the point was about the policy... This hypothetic story is irrelevant in itself and served only to understand what I have to do in some situations. After all if you see |this example, you see that some people are ignorant, intensionally or not, about seeing my notes. In this situation if anyone noticed, would know that the Forsaken were formed because the Civil War in the Plaguelands and not directly by the Third war and also that because the fall of Lordaeron, the Alliance of Lordaeron ended as well (later the members would form both New Alliance and/or Alliance). If you don't noticed, is really more easier to put some notes then start an discussion about something (that), sometimes, you don't know if someone will change/protest. Gabrirt (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Based on the fact that you felt the need to explain yourself (and more than once), it did need discussion. If it does need discussion, which is does, then use a talk page, not the edit summaries.-- 20:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Affiliations
Feel free to switch from listing the former affiliations within the affiliation parameter to the former affiliations parameter  with the npcbox template. 04:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

RaceIcon
If you could use RaceIcon rather than RaceIconExt that would be great. They were merged and RaceIconExt is in the process of being removed. Thank you, 03:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Preview
I notice you have a number of small edits. If you're editing a lot of things on one page and want to see how it looks, you may wish to use the "Show preview" button before saving the page to see that. Thanks!  (talk contribs) 20:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Lordaeron
You're killing me you know.  (talk contribs) 04:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A mode Death Note? No... You heard my argues and my strong will and determination can meke me stand here all day... Or weeks? Anyway; I will remove the presumed leaders and titles, if you want.Gabrirt (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have obsessions about infoboxes. [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 04:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Redirects and piped link syntax
Kindly avoid creating redirect pages when you simply want to link to a specific page using different link text. Instead, consider using the piped link syntax; for instance, rather than writing the Deceiver to link to Kil'jaeden (and creating a redirect page), use  to produce the same effect: the Deceiver. &mdash; foxlit (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been suggested to him above.-- 00:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But I still not understand what is the problem to create redirects.Gabrirt (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two of legitimate uses of redirects: redirecting from things reasonable people might type in their address bar to proper page names, and ensuring that old internal links are not broken after an article is moved. In general, redirects are troublesome: they mask the actual target page from the reader, introduce an additional layer of indirection for the editors to maintain, and annoyingly pollute the search autocompletion box. You've shown that you are unable to keep track of even the redirects you've created yourself: see for instance Illidan's forces' campaign and Illidan's forces campaign.
 * In short, creating redirects to be used in this fashion is not appropriate. The next time you do so, I intend to block you for 24 hours, and double the block duration for every subsequent occurrence. &mdash; foxlit (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Tiras'alan, Zangus... Create redirects for unique character names looks reasonable to me and I think that this menace that you are trying to impose are more a dictatorship way to solve the problem, once that never had been surely stated (or at least I've never caught the idea) what someone consider a reasonable redirect. And as I consider reasonable create redirects in the situation that I stated (unique character names) I will keep creating in this situation.Gabrirt (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I consider this to also apply to character name redirects, with the same exceptions as before. Note that you can use  to achieve  without creating a redirect.
 * It is indeed "a dictatorship way to solve the problem" and I do imagine you might have difficulties with determining what may or may not fall under the "reasonable people" exception (Arthas redirecting to Arthas Menethil is okay; Tiras'alan to General Tiras'alan is not). Perhaps if you hadn't blatantly ignored SWM in the past, we would not be here now. &mdash; foxlit (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there are more motives to create redirects: To avoid the use of the piped link when, for the example, I write "Joncus" and link it without have to write "Joncus Swiftleaf Bomburger of Damned Abyss" and also pippe every time that I want link to his (or it) page. But if you consider this too sluggish doing so, I can do it under an explanation about the problem (the negative points in doing so). Also for me is very reasonable to put Kingdom of Stromgarde as a redirect, for the example. How can I predict if it is acceptable or not? The understanding of the things always varies from different people. - Gabrirt (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In general, redirects are troublesome: they mask the actual target page from the reader, introduce an additional layer of indirection for the editors to maintain, and annoyingly pollute the search autocompletion box. I do not consider "avoid the use of piped link" to be a legitimate use of redirects; thus, Kingdom of Stromgarde should not exist as a redirect -- it is not a temporary byproduct of a move, nor something someone reasonable would type into an address bar ("Stromgarde" is far shorter). &mdash; foxlit (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No one explained me what was the problem about the redirects and also I never "blatantly ignored SWM in the past". Suggestion (as described by SMN), is a name implies something optional to follow and, as there was no apparent motivation to do it necessarily, I just keep going with a bit more caution. But if you need that I do something; explain the "why" and I can consider in doing so. I will fight against the world if necessary but I never will blindly follow anything without an explanation, a discussion, a chance to stay my points and defend myself. Be a tyrannical despot will only show your unfairness, ignorance and low consideration about the users and a very uncomfortable climate in this site. But there is a chance to redemption: remove your unfair menace and start to talk about what redirects created annoys you in time. I can be more careful in creating them and I don't want be automatically blocked by simply creating a redirect; if you don't like some redirect that I've created discuss the abouts, according the very talked cycle instead turning on the "mad bloodthirsty dictator" button. As, for now, my speech sounds logical, I will not considerer your menace and back to my very freedom, awaiting your console about this. Thank you for reading.Gabrirt (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * SWM is being polite in pointing out (to me) that you have been talked to about this topic before. Let me quote you what he wrote to you previously, emphasis mine: "You should not create links only to make them redirects." You did not respond to this, and continued to do what you were told you shouldn't, prompting him to remind you again: "Every unique name does not need a redirect." Once again, there's no response to this either on your or his talk page. It is this lack of response to a quite specific request that causes me to think you're blatantly ignoring those you disagree with. Looking at the rest of this talk page, this pattern recurs far more often that it should.
 * I am rather unimpressed by your name-calling rhetoric, and consider you sufficiently warned regarding this issue. Proceed at your own risk. &mdash; foxlit (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I might have been a bit rude, but they are still unnecessary.-- 16:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked
I've blocked you for 24 hours as a consequence of moving the War against Deathwing page despite the feedback regarding your move proposal being overwhelmingly negative. It is not appropriate for you to disregard community opinion and proceed with the page move anyway.

Additionally, I'm concerned with your behavior on Forgotten one, opting to reinstate the infobox, despite being previously reverted. The proper behavior there would've been to respond using the talk page, and only reinstate the infobox when a consensus was reached.

When the block expires, please avoid making controversial changes (including reverting other contributors) without establishing a consensus on the relevant Talk pages beforehand. &mdash; foxlit (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * FIRST: You don't give me a chance at least to defend myself. So I noticed that every block is unfair: The user is turned unable to communicate with anyone in the site. At least the user's talk page should be able to be edited.
 * SECOND: For me, I was being "bold". I was trying to move the page but I would not edit war it if someone's revert. Sometimes I do this to encourage some discussion. Did you think that I known every single policy of this site?! Even with this I was give no response after all...
 * THIRD: I have found some absurd against me in the page Violations. This was the first time that I visited the page following my remembered knowledge. I saw somethings about my past edit warring, but it shouldn't be considered "vandalism". But the matter is another: I saw that I was marked by "fanfic"; a thing that I NEVER MADE when it points about Warcraft. And why, for the example, if I, for some reason, turn willingly to made it; Why I would make it in a place of a official article??? This should be immediately explained. I feel ever more victim of unfairness than before.
 * FOURTH: I knew your existence only some week(s) ago and you menaced and blocked me for the first time since I entered in this site. Are you a real life version of ? Can you learn to be more soft? You blocked me without discuss. I'm stating to think that you think that known me; and if it is truth is probably wrong since I both in this site and in real life have a whole history of misunderstandings as I'm a person with a number of similarities with autism (I'm not him: don't misunderstand!).
 * AND FIFTH: I couldn't discuss about Forgotten one thanks to you. <I click in "Save changes"; 'Ohhhh wait: What happened to me?! - Is foxlit a despot?'

I would love end and left behind this, but I want a half-apologize from you, since I admit that I have some responsibility in being some negligent in not notice details of the wowpedia.. 20:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD serves to encourages new editors to make the changes they think necessary to improve the article. It is not a license to ignore the opinions of others (especially after presenting your plan and being told that it wasn't a good idea), nor to make controversial changes and dare them to revert you -- rather than being you being bold, this would be you committing petty vandalism.
 * WP:V content is user-contributed: if you're listed on there, it is because another user thought some of your edits to be vandalism. You have not been banned as a result of that listing, so I'm not inclined to go digging to find out what you did or did not do at the time. If you're interested in finding out why exactly your name is on that list, contact the person who put you there.
 * Your changes to Forgotten one were basically reverting an administrator who reverted your previous change; thus, you should've reached a consensus on the talk page prior to making the change to begin with. The block occurred over an hour after the change you should've discussed, so I'm not particularly sold on the idea that you were writing a talk page entry at the time.
 * I'm less interested in hearing you defend yourself. If your responses here are any indication, any such defense would be a collection of flimsy excuses and petty name-calling, neither of which help your case. I do not think that I know you, so rest assured that nothing of this is personal. The block's purpose is to give you time to reflect over what you've done to get blocked, and how to avoid doing so in the future.
 * There's a bigger issue here: you're creating an enormous number of changes each day. This would would ordinarily be a good thing; however, a considerable number of those changes are minor, controversial tweaks. Some of those get reverted by people who do not believe them to be worthwhile; you generally revert those reverts right back. These small-scale reversion wars are counter-productive -- people end up spending disproportionate amounts of time cleaning up after you, time that could be spent improving other articles. This situation is obviously undesirable.
 * I've instructed you to not make controversial changes (including reverting other contributors) without establishing a consensus on the relevant talk pages beforehand. The intention is to get you to discuss any changes that might be subject to a revert war without other editors prior to making them, not through conversations in edit summaries. This will hopefully improve the quality of your contributions, as well as reduce the amount of time others have to spend reverting your edits. Should you fail to do so, or if this plan fails to improve the quality of your contributions, I see more and longer blocks in your future. &mdash; foxlit (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked you for 72 hours for reverting User:A'noob on Nerubian Empire without establishing prior agreement on the talk page, contrary to the instructions not to make controversial edits or revert other users without establishing a consensus on the relevant Talk page beforehand. Arguing your case in an edit summary is not appropriate; doing so again will result in another block. &mdash; foxlit (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Gabrirt, seriously, you should try to talk and think before acting.
 * When I remove Kilix from the leader because there is no infos, saying that "Nor Lor'themar is [...] there is no known evidence that he is the leader." is ridiculous.
 * Anyone who even only play the games and don't read books, can tell who is the leader of Que'Thalas
 * 05:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all: "he" was referring to Killix not to Lor'themar Theron. And I have to give a response doing the revision of everything that I have edited. Expect me explaining myself this time. 19:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought I'd just like to comment this statement:
 * "I'm a person with a number of similarities with autism"

As a person with the same diagnosis, I'm utterly disgusted with your attempt at trying to dismiss your behaviour on this. Stop trying to make excuses. -- 07:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not think that it even deserved a response. Justifying your actions with that... and calling the Red Shirt Guy autistic too as some sort of justification... that is terrible.-- 19:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * He disgusts me. [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 19:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Not helping.-- 20:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I speak what I think. [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 20:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was believing that the motive of persons were not understanding what I did in my edits maybe because the suspect of autism I had. Today this has been discarded and, today, I believe that the persons were not understanding me because they don't have caught the wind on the meaning of my alterations. Maybe I was accidentally believing in telepathy and not explaining me properly. I will try to fix this. I'm not that evil that you are talking about. 19:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Signature
I've changed your signature to a simpler version. Please avoid using &lt;choose> in your signature, especially to change its visual appearance -- doing so is detrimental to others' ability to determine which comments in a talk page discussion have been made by the same person. &mdash; foxlit (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A short block
After lengthy discussion among the administrative staff of Wowpedia, it was agreed that for numerous reasons, we agreed that we should ban a select few people for a month. There are repeated instances in your editing history of aggravating behavior and repetitive disruptive editing. We will admit that our reasoning is subjective, but it is too time consuming to go over your edits and fix the mess that you leave behind. You never learn, and have shown that you do not improve much. This ban is to give you some time to think about whether you want to continue to contribute to the wiki or not. You can address your problems by reviewing past arguments that you have had with other Wowpedia users and editors, and actually conceding once in a while. Start contributing more constructively. This is not a ban of infinite duration, though it may become that if you do not improve immediately. Your contributions are often counterproductive. Though you may be personally disliked by some, this ban is purely for what you have brought to Wowpedia. After a month away, please be more constructive in the future. Thank you for understanding.-- 03:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I consider this block somewhat unfair because I couldn't give the proper response since my last block, but unlikely MgTG I don't have a reason to be banned for sock puppetry and block evasion. Well, I was surprised when I saw his ban. 20:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)