User talk:VisionOfPerfection

Welcome to Wowpedia!

Hello, VisionOfPerfection, 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. Again, welcome! -- 20:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014 Blanking pages
Blanking pages is not an acceptable move to make when trying to have a conversation about article content. Stop immediately or you will be blocked. -- k_d3 16:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Internal links
Instead of using the full URL, any links pointing to other WoWpedia pages should be done with double square brackets around everything following "http://wowpedia.org/". I.E. "http://wowpedia.org/Soulstones" should be "Soulstones". --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Signing comments
Please, when making comments on talk pages, always sign it off with four tildes ~. Thank you. 02:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As another reminder, please sign your comments so talk page discussions don't become confusing. Thank you. -- (•) 22:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Stop.
Just stop. You know what you are doing. Shouting your Necromancer/Warlock theory on as many pages as you can is getting tiresome. Please review our Disruptive editing policy and know that you will be banned for progressively longer periods of time if you do not calm down.-- 16:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, clearly Thule isn't a Warlock because he can summon imps which requires training in the Warlock arts. I have only presented what has been established by Blizzard, I'm not posting any theories, you stop, and stop editing valid speculation. Disgracing the admin team. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by.
 * Please use the Talk: and User talk: pages, and actually achieve consensus before re-instating your reverted changes. Failing to do so would be interpreted as continued disruptive editing.
 * In general, you're subject to extra requirements regarding achieving consensus because you've made a large number of changes that were objectionable to a large number of editors. The intention is to reduce the amount of annoyance you cause for others. Ideally, this would happen because you'd discuss potentially contentious changes prior to making them, eventually learning which types of changes are undesirable. Beyond that, we're essentially down to blocks of increasing length, which give you time to consider what you're doing wrong, while also giving the other editors a brief reprieve.
 * If you'd like to discuss your block while you're blocked, you're welcome to contact the administrators by following the instructions on User:WowpediaAdmins. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * My changes are based on canon facts established by Blizzard employees and authors. You seemed so keen on upholding canon, but when I make changes that are based on canon, you block me, nice logic. I suggest you block that dumb fuck making edits that oppose canon. My changes should not be objectionable to other editors. Gul'dan did not belong to the Necromancer class, and Kil'jaeden didn't either, this has been well established by Loreology and Aaron Rosenberg.VisionOfPerfection (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
 * Calm down. Last warning. -- (•) 17:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit summaries are not an appropriate place to discuss edits. They're for explaining what you changed, not arguing about the why. That's what Talk pages are for. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The speculation sections your edits have created on Warlock and Fel articles were not good contributions to either article -- they read like a cited collection of contradictions aimed at injecting Necromancy-related content into the article, rather than a coherent and concise contribution relevant to the article's subject. In my view, these edits are detrimental to the quality of the existing articles, and as you've been warned about pushing this content previously, I've blocked you from making further edits for three weeks. — foxlit (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Linking to quests.
Please use pages on Wowpedia instead of unnecessary external links. We should have the quests that you need.-- 03:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Internal links do not need to be URLs, just the page name.-- 05:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * sorry mate, im slight highVisionOfPerfection (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)VisionOofperfection

Signature
Your signature appears to be broken. Are you signing with four tildes ? If so, what do your "Signature" preferences look like?-- 01:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm signing with four tildes, I found that it was changeVisionOfPerfection (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

Attitude
You've been warned previously about your attitude. It is not acceptable to insult other users on Talk pages, regardless of your personal feelings, and if you cannot participate in discussions without doing so then you should probably find another site to frequent. If you choose to come back after your ban and do not improve your attitude, the next one will be permanent. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Minor edits
Please don't mark your edits as "minor edits". Edits like this and this are not minor while edits like this are. Thanks a bunch. 06:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to echo Coobra's statement, as you have been marking EVERY edit as a minor one and most of them are not. As a general rule of thumb, if you're doing anything more significant than correcting grammar/spelling/broken links, it's probably not a minor edit. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Alrighty=]VisionOfPerfection (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

Pluralizing links
If you want to link a plural form of something, e.g. voidwalkers, you don't need to use a piped link. Including the s at the end of the link ( voidwalkers ) will result in it being incorporated into the link. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Fel
Hi. This article is about Fel, there is no need to have an entire section dedicated to Death and Life which are separate things, and it is already mentioned that Fel consumes life/souls. Also there was too much speculation. You can put your thoughts in the speculation section but they have no place within the main article (for example when you say that fel has a lack of life in it or whatever). Finally, all wielders of fel are denizens of the cosmos. See the connection ? There is no need to separate them into two categories (denizens of the cosmos / professions), people come to this article to learn more about fel and who wields it, thus : wielders of fel. They can be demons, they can be dragons, they can be demon hunters, they can be warlocks. They're all under the same banner, they're all wielders of fel, there is no need to separate them. Cordially, -- ShellShockLive (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * All wielders of fel are denizens of the cosmos, but not all denizens of the cosmos are wielders of fel. That's why there should be two, separate sections. The point of the denizens of the cosmos section is to display information about fel and it's relationship with the races it affected.--VisionOfPerfection (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection


 * "not all denizens of the cosmos are wielders of fel" I don't see how that is relevant ? Why would you want to talk about people who don't wield fel, in the article about fel ? That's like talking about people not related to the Light, in the article about the Light. Not sure if I'm expressing myself clearly. Edit : I think I understand what you meant. But people affected/modified/altered by Fel are as much wielders of fel as the one that actually go and seek the fel (both have fel in them). If you want we could rename the section "Effects on living beings" or something along those lines. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Demons
Hi. There are many things you need to know, you are way too literal.

1) "Reality" in warcraft means something different than in the real world. In real life, something that is not real is something that does not exist. In warcraft, something that is not part of reality just means that it is not part of the Great Dark Beyond, also called the physical universe, also called reality. That's it. Just because something comes from beyond the Great Dark doesn't mean they don't exist. The Twisting Nether has parts of it that are very much physical, there are planets there, there are lands, that you can walk on, and beings that you can interact with, called demons, that you can touch and hear and smell and they are as physical as you, all of these DO exist, specially since they CAN manifest in the Great Dark, just like the Light can, just like the Void can. See here. Reality is just what is at the center, that doesn't mean that all the rest outside the borders of the Great Dark aren't physical or real.

2) Astral does NOT mean ethereal. Astral just means "from beyond the stars" or whatever. Please realize this.

3) Demons are absolutely living beings since you can suck the life force out of them.

4) Demons are not constructs, they are living beings. SOME demons are (originally) constructs such as the infernals, but even that is debatable since they have been state to possess a mind, though a beast-like mind rather than a fully sentient creature.

5) You linked yourself a tweet from a writer that debunked your whole theory. And what did you do ? You wrote "this writer can not believe what he said". Do you understand how wrong that is ? You have no right to say that an official statement can't be true. Matt Burns clearly said that the Nether had physical stuff in there, you can't just sweep that under the carpet and say that they are wrong. -- ShellShockLive (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe you have it backwards


 * 1) You're presenting your interpretations of the lore as fact. The Nether transcends realities as per canon. The Nether is not from "reality" and it's not reality, whether you like it or not. It's a place of illusion and can be perceived in many different ways as per canon, whether you like it or not. By all extension, demons can be perceived many different ways if their from the Nether, whether you like it or not.


 * 2) Yes, astral is an adjective that can be applied to things of, from, or relating to, the stars. But, it can also be applied to things of or relating to a supposed nonphysical realm of existence to which various psychic and paranormal phenomena are ascribed, and in which the physical human body is said to have a counterpart. Since the Nether is a dimension separate from the physical universe, a universe with stars, it would not be astral because it doesn't relate to stars, which Elune apparently places the dead as by the way. The Nether would be astral in the sense that it's a NONPHYSICAL REALM OF EXISTENCE separate from the physical universe. Demons would be non-physical entities if they're from a place outside of physical reality and no where does canon state flesh comes from an astral coalition of unstable spiritual energies that is separate from the place fleshy mortals come from. Absolutely no where. People here are just making excuses. What exactly is the point of Blizzard's employees establishing the Nether as an astral dimension separate from a universe with stars if they and you are just going to disregard what demons would be if they're from the Nether?


 * 3) It's funny how you're claiming demons are ABSOLUTELY living beings, claiming that their destructive fel energies consume life, then denying that you're wrong for claiming that demons are absolutely living beings. You're not being reasonable or sensible what-so-ever and, if anything, there should be a speculation section that provides points supporting the claim that demons are living. However, since there really isn't any points supporting that claim and just people claiming that they're living as a fact, it seems as if my speculation section is just filled with facts. Perhaps fel energies don't literally consume life or does not inherently consume life, but if that's the case, you've failed to mention that and are acting as if fel energies are literally forces that nyom nyom nyom nyom nyom nyom nyom.


 * 4) Demons are constructs if they can be destroyed because destruction - as it can be defined - is the process of destroying constructs, breaking their structures down into the parts that they're constructed of. It's entirely different from the process known as dying (dying is for the living while constructs can be destroyed) and you're basically conflating the two. You also seem to be conflating a spirit that is tethered to the Nether and has a physical form with a physical being that has a spirit tethered to the Nether. Although the two seem the same, they're not. Demons would be non-physical beings or spirits tethered to the Nether if they're from the Nether, but you're basically claiming that a demon is a physical being with a spirit that is tethered to the Nether and returns to the Nether even after the demon dies. I don't believe you even understand what a demon is.


 * 5) No I didn't. Matt Burns claimed that he believes there are physical stuff in the Nether, but just because he believes there are physical stuff in the Nether does not mean there actually are physical stuff in the Nether. You're taking someone's opinion and presenting it as canon fact even though some of Blizzard's employees have made it perfectly clear that their opinions do not always reflect Blizzard or that their tweets are their own. What you're doing? It's called presenting misinformation. If anything, Matt Burns' "belief" should be mentioned in the speculation section about whether demons are non-physical entities or not.--VisionOfPerfection (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection


 * Chronicle states demons are living beings. That makes it an absolute fact. Chronicle uses "die" and "kill" for demons. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) I never said the Nether was part of reality. I explicitly linked you to a picture of Chronicle that pointed out that the Nether was outside of the borders of reality (or Great Dark). This still doesn't mean that what is inside it is not physical or intangible, as the dev you linked yourself explained.
 * 2) "Astral could be interpreted as" Yes, I know, but that's your interpretation, not fact. I'm not against this interpretation by the way, I was just pointing out that it was not the only one. However in this case you are wrong, the Nether is not entirely ethereal, it is also physical.
 * 3)What are you saying exactly ? Yes fel consumes life, this is fact and there is no debating that. And yes demons are living beings, otherwise you wouldn't be able to consume their soul/life, or even kill them.
 * 4)"Demons are constructs if they can be destroyed because destruction is the process of destroying constructs" Now it really feels like as if you're trolling. Not only is your definition twisted, to destroy simply means to kill or to make something no longer exist/unrepairable, but they are not constructs at all. And no demons are not just spirits they ARE physical. However I think I understand where you're coming from : you're saying that demons are an assembly, a body and a soul, two separate things, right ? Well please realize that this is how every single living being in warcraft works, everyone has a soul linked to a body, so by your definition everyone is a construct.
 * 5) I don't even want to argue with this, ignore his words. The Nether has physical parts because there are ROCKS that you can walk on. There ! -- ShellShockLive (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That's nice Aquamonkey, but if demons are living beings that die, what you need to do is explain how they're different from mortals (living beings that die). Or, if demons are living beings that CAN die, what you need to do is explain how they're different from mortals who cheat death. And, by mortals who cheat death, I mean mortals such as "mortal" druids who have their souls bound to the Emerald Dream or "mortal" warlocks who create soulstones then toss them into nether portals, effectively becoming "bound to the Nether" as if they're demons. Don't do what you've done on MMO-Champion, acting as if demons are living beings immune to death but can die. If demons are immune to something specifically designed to bring the living to a state of entropic decay and eventual oblivion (death), you need to explain how demons can die to anything. Now, demons may not exist inside an invisible bubble that somehow specifically blocks out chronomantic energies and necromantic energies, preventing them from aging or decaying, but YOU are acting as if they are. Not me. I get that the Chronicle claims that they're living, but do you know what else canon claims? It claims that a demon can also be considered undead (a former mortal) when demons are not mortals and would (key word: would) need to be transformed into mortals before becoming undead (former mortals). It also claims that the constructed infernals are living demons and that constructs are not actually alive (basically claiming that infernals are not truly living things that are technically alive). It claims a lot of things that will never make sense and trying to make me understand something that will never make sense seems so pointless. Those who claim demons, when regarding to World of Warcraft, are living beings even though they're not beings defined by aging and dying (mortals) and possess destructive energies that consume souls (life essences) seem absolutely crazy. You seriously should drop the act Aquamonkey. If you want me to shut up and stop claiming demons aren't living, prove to me that demons are living beings by denying canon information that establishes they're immortals from an astral dimension and have life-consuming energies. Don't just go claiming that demons are living merely because the Chronicle states they are. You're not some dumb person that accepts everything someone states as the truth, at least to me anyways.
 * "you need to do is explain how they're different from mortals (living beings that die)" When demons die, their soul goes to the Nether and their body reforms. When mortals die, their souls (usually) go to the Shadowlands and remain there forever (unless someone raises them again or whatever). Simple
 * "do you know what else canon claims?It claims that a demon can also be considered undead" YES. Exactly. Demons can be undead and you have NO right to say otherwise. You can't SERIOUSLY be linking at a writer claiming that demons can be undead and then say "no they can't be undead", this is madness dude. This is canon. You have no right to say it isn't. What the hell.
 * "Those who claim demons, when regarding to World of Warcraft, are living beings even though they're not beings defined by aging and dying (mortals)" Can you understand that you CAN be a living being AND and not age at the same time ? Like the aspects or the night elves back then ? They were very much alive AND could not age. These are not mutually exclusive. Same for demons, they are living beings AND they don't age. Not hard to understand.
 * How on earth "possessing fel energies" could prevent one from being alive ? What the hell.
 * "Don't just go claiming that demons are living merely because the Chronicle states they are." Are you SERIOUS ? DarkTZeratul is he serious ? -- ShellShockLive (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) @ShellShockLive Oh, but you're acting as if the Nether is a part of reality. If the Nether isn't a part of physical reality or isn't physical reality, the entities existing in the Nether would not be physical entities. The writer I referenced claims that he believes there are physical stuff in the Nether. He didn't state that there is physical stuff in the Nether as a fact. What you're doing is taking someone's belief/opinion and presenting it as fact and that's wrong. You're also rewording canon information so that it means something entirely different and that is wrong as well. For example, canon establishes that the Burning Legion feeds warlocks their powers, allowing them to channel destructive energies and call upon the demonic emissaries of their demon masters, yet you reworded that canon information so that it seems as if warlocks tapping into chaotic magics is what allows warlocks to do these things. That thing you're doing? It's called presenting misinformation and practicing hypocrisy. You expect me to obey even opinions as canon law, yet you take canon sources out of context. Is it wrong to say shame on you? I don't believe so.
 * 2) It is a fact because the Nether is not something that is "of, from, or relating to" the stars. It's an astral dimension that the most unstable energies coalesced into and is separate from the Great Dark Beyond, which can also be defined as astral because it is indeed of, from, or relating to, the stars. The Nether is not astral because it isn't of, from, or relating to, stars. The Nether is astral because it's a nonphysical realm of existence. If the Nether is an astral and physical realm, it would basically be no different from the Great Dark Beyond, which is a physical realm. You shouldn't be claiming that the Nether is an astral dimension if you don't even know why it's astral in the first place.
 * 3) You need to take the time to understand the implications of your claims. You're claiming that fel consumes life and that demons are living beings. Do you seriously not understand what you're claiming here and the problem with it? You're claiming that something demons contain (fel) consumes life...and you're also claiming demons have life. And just how can demons have life when the magic they contain consumes life? As I've asked before, perhaps fel energy doesn't literally consume life or doesn't inherently consume life?
 * 4) Please don't get it twisted. It actually feels as if you're trolling. Dying IS not the same as destruction. They're two different processes and you're conflating the two. I don't think you do understand where I'm coming from because I'm definitely not stating that a demon is a body and a soul (which are two separate things as you've acknowledged). There is a difference between a spirit that is tethered to the Nether and can have a physical form, a construct constructed with a physical body and a spirit tethered to the Nether, and a physical body WITH a spirit tethered to the Nether. Although those three may seem the same, they're not the same and you're basically conflating them. If a demon is a spirit tethered to the Nether and CAN have a physical form, a demon can exist without a physical form and go back to the Nether even after the physical form is destroyed. If a demon is a construct constructed with a physical body and a spirit tethered to the Nether, a demon CAN'T have a spirit that returns to the Nether because the demon is part spirit and the spirit ceases to exist the moment the demon is "destroyed". If a demon is a physical body with a spirit tethered to the Nether, the spirit of a demon (a physical body) ceases to exist the moment that physical body (or demon) is destroyed. Here, you're claiming that demons are living entities when, if anything, demons are disembodied spirits (technically undead) and can be given physical forms by warlocks such as necrophytes. You seem confused and that is exactly why I'm leaving these speculations up.
 * 5) Are you referring to those floating rocks in Outland that are shown in-game? In-game mechanics don't always = lore. Also, mention of rocks floating in the Nether remind me:
 * 5.1) Worlds have been described as living by canon. If worlds can be living, they can die. And if they can die, they can become dead. And if they can become dead, they can become undead. And out of all my years researching WoW lore, I've never heard or seen any canon source stating that worlds can become undead. And why is that? Could it be because using magic to control things that were once living worlds can be considered necromancy?
 * 5.2) Demons may not be dead (or undead) even though they're from an astral dimension separate from the physical universe, but tell me more about how demons are living? The "worlds" of fel entities are blighted worlds that exist in the Nether, a realm devoid of true life - mortal life. Their worlds are just as dead as Outland. One would presume that these demons are dying from starvation and their own blighted energies.--VisionOfPerfection (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection


 * 1) No the Nether is not part of "reality" aka the Great Dark Beyond, but it still has physical parts in it. I don't get what is so hard to understand.
 * 1.5) Warlocks can use fel without demons. The warlocks of the black harvest conducted a ritual to summon a demon, without having a demon with them in the first place.
 * 3) The exact same way Fel orcs and fel boars and fel elves and fel deers and fel highmountain tauren and fel nightborne can continue to exist.
 * 4) No, demons are not undead. And they have physical form BEFORE warlocks do anything to them.
 * 4.5) "If a demon is a physical body with a spirit tethered to the Nether, the spirit of a demon (a physical body) ceases to exist the moment that physical body (or demon) is destroyed" Exactly. This is the one. Their physical body dies (like Mannoroth's) and their soul returns to the Nether when they grow a new body, contrary to non-demons whose souls go in the Shadowlands (with some exceptions such as druids who go to the Dream or whatever) and don't reform.
 * 5) " Are you referring to those floating rocks in Outland that are shown in-game?" Yes and those in Niskara for example, or the rock Archimonde pulled Khadgar Yrel and friends onto, situated in the Twisting Nether. All these were physical.
 * 5.1) Some worlds are living yes, those with a world-soul. If you meant "worlds are living" in general then it's more of a metaphor for all the life they have on them.
 * 5.2)Demons are living as per Chronicle, we've already explained that to you. -- ShellShockLive (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Thanks for agreeing that the Nether is not part of "reality". Now, stop acting as if it can have physical parts in it and stop presenting someone's opinion as a god-given fact.
 * 2) Warlocks can't use fel without a demon because fel is demonic. If there is no demon, there is no fel. There is no fel, because fel is demonic. You're acting as if fel doesn't need to come from - or relate to - a demon, so why are you calling it demonic? No where does canon state that the warlocks of the black harvest conducted a ritual to summon a demon without having a demon with them in the first place. First of all, in-game doesn't always = lore. Second of all, demons can be hidden (e.g. Thal'kiel hiding his demons). Lastly, by dabbling in fel energies, warlocks are involving themselves with demons because those fel energies serve as a bond to demons - a bond that would allow a warlock to control those entities.
 * 3) Yes, demons are undead. They're astral entities from an astral dimension. If they have bodies, their bodies are astral bodies. If that liquid that can course through them isn't liquid rot and is actual blood, their blood still isn't the blood of living beings that die (mortals) and I place emphasis on ISN'T THE BLOOD OF LIVING BEINGS. It has necromantic properties (see Felmyst and Tyrus Blackhorn), which is most likely because fel magic is poisonous as per canon and when someone's blood is infused with it, the being would - or does - become poisoned with a sickness that drains life as if it's the life-draining sickness known as the Plague of Undeath, which Arthas and Jaina speculates has something to do with fel energy.
 * 4) Don't state "exactly" as if you understand my point. A demon is a not a physical body with a spirit tethered to the Nether because if a demon is a physical body with a spirit tethered to the Nether, the spirit of a demon (a physical body) ceases to exist the moment that physical body (or demon) is destroyed. If a demon is a physical body with a spirit tethered to the Nether, the moment the demon (a physical body) is destroyed is the moment the spirit stops being the spirit of a demon (a physical body) because the physical body (or demon) is destroyed. If anything, demons are spirits tethered to the Nether and can have physical forms given to them by a warlock such as Gul'dan.
 * 5) Well, you shouldn't be referring to those floating rocks in-game because in-game doesn't always equate to lore.
 * 6) Don't claim some worlds are living if you're just going to make excuses after I tell you the implication of your claims. Worlds can't be living because if worlds can be living in the sense that they have souls, worlds can become dead. And if not all worlds have world-souls, what are those worlds without world-souls? Were they born dead just like Unborn Val'kyr?--VisionOfPerfection (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
 * I was the one to say that the Nether was not part of the Great Dark in the first place. The Nether is situated outside the GD, however it HAS physical parts in it, such as Niskara or Outland or Mardum.
 * "If there is no demon, there is no fel." This is false. Fel existed before demons. Chronicle explained that the Nether was created alongside the Great Dark, and that its volatile fel energies would occasionaly bleed into the latter. THEN it explained that life would arise in the form of demons, and demons would eventually learn to manipulate the fel. So you are wrong.
 * "No where does canon state that the warlocks of the black harvest conducted a ritual to summon a demon without having a demon with them in the first place. " In the freaking game. They conducted the ritual without using any demon. If you want to claim that they did use a demon you need proof, you have none. If you want to claim that a demon was secretly hidden there you need proof, you have none.
 * Demons are not undead. They are living beings. Page 21 Chronicle states that "LIFE had also arisen in the Nether", "these creatures were known as demons".
 * "and can have physical forms given to them by a warlock such as Gul'dan." And how would you explain the war of the ancients ? Thousands of demons poured into the portal without "being given form" by a warlock. Also your claim is outlandish and has no basis in lore. Demons have bodies on their own, nobody gives it to them. Demons have a body, and a soul. When their body is destroyed, when they die, their soul returns to the Nether where they grow a new body. That's all. Same as Wild Gods and the Dream, when these guys die they return to wherever their soul is bound to (the Dream, or the Nether for demons) and reform. That's all. They are not undead, and they are not constructs.
 * These floating rocks ARE the lore unless you can prove that it's not. Everything you see in-game is CANON unless there is something that discredits it (novels, etc.). In this case there is NOTHING saying that niskara, mardum and outland are not canonically in the nether, on the contrary they are EXPLICITLY stated to be situated in the Nether.
 * "worlds can be living in the sense that they have souls, worlds can become dead." Yes. Aman'thul was a planet with a soul called a world-soul. Eventually, it died, because Sargeras killed him. So yes worlds can die.
 * " what are those worlds without world-souls?" just big chunks of rocks floating in the Great Dark. -- ShellShockLive (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was the one who stated that the Nether is not a part of the physical universe first. And you're still using in-game examples to prove your point when in-game =/= lore
 * No, it isn't false - you're just lying, presenting misinformation as fact, and anyone who has the Chronicle can know that to be true. Fel did not exist before demons and there is absolutely not a single source stating that it did. The Chronicle didn't say its volatile fel energies would occasionally bleed into the Great Dark Beyond. It specifically states, "The most unstable energies coalesced into an astral dimension known as the Twisting Nether. Light and Void collided and bled together at the edges of this realm, throwing it into turmoil. Although tangentially linked to the Great Dark Beyond, the Twisting Nether existed outside the borders of the physical universe. Even so, the Twisting Nether's volatile energies would occasionally tear through the veil of the Great Dark, flooding into reality and warping creation." <No where does the Chronicle state those volatile energies are fel energies. Arcane energies also exist in the Nether and arcane magic is described as innately volatile. For all we know, those volatile energies that flood into reality and warp creation are arcane energies.
 * Demons are not undead? Nice theory, but you need to explain how they aren't undead when YOU (key word: YOU) believe the energy they contain (fel) consumes life as if it inherently does. The problem isn't me here. It's you and your refusal to accept A) demons don't have life if their fel inherently consumes life or B) fel does not inherently consume life.
 * Where does the War of the Ancients novels state that the demons being summoned weren't or were given physical forms? And no, my claim is not outlandish and has no basis in lore. It is a fact that if a demon is a physical body WITH a spirit tethered to the Nether, the spirit of a demon (a physical body) ceases to exist the moment the physical body is destroyed. You need to learn the difference between being something and having something. If a demon has a body and a soul, a demon is not a body and a soul. If a demon is a body and soul, the moment the demon is destroyed is the moment the soul is destroyed because it's part soul. And if a demono is part spirit and part body (two separate things), a demon is a construct - whether you like it or not.
 * You've got it totally twisted. These floating rocks aren't the lore unless YOU can prove that they're not. Everything you see in-game isn't canon unless there is something that credits it (novels, etc.). And Outland isn't in the Nether because if it was, Illidan and every other demon that died would have been gone for good. You're conflating the Nether for the place in-between the non-physical realm of existence (the Nether) and the physical realm of existence (the Great Dark). If anything, those worlds are in-between the Nether and the Great Dark Beyond.
 * Really? Worlds can die? Are you trolling? Worlds can't literally die dude. If worlds can die when regarding to World of Warcraft, you'd still deny that manipulating a dead world or remnants of living worlds is technically necromancy. I don't believe you're understanding the implications of your claims or being serious here.--VisionOfPerfection (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

Fel speculations
Hi. I removed a few but it's not a hostile act, just so you know. I removed them because they are not speculations, they are facts. Yes, demonic energies can be used without demonc. The warlocks of the black harvest use fel and demonic energies without demons. And yes, fel could be used for necromancy, as gul'dan showed with mannoroth. However it's not a form of life, though it can be used to animate constructs such as infernals (and fel reavers I guess?). -- ShellShockLive (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You seem to be misunderstanding the point of the speculations and ultimately my point. Warlocks (according to how a canon source would describe it) convert life into fel, but IF (key word: if) fel is something that life is transformed into, fel is a form of life. Are you understanding what I'm getting at now? So why are you denying that it's a form of life? I'm being honest here, you truly seem confused about this, which is why this speculation section is needed.--VisionOfPerfection (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection


 * Also, you need to provide proof that demonic energies can be used without a demon. The warlocks of the black harvest summon demons (and, by extension, demonic powers) and the eredar warlocks are essentially demons or demonic entities with demonic energies that they can channel. I don't believe you even understand what a channeler is. A channeler can be defined as person who conveys thoughts or energy from a source believed to be outside the person's body or conscious mind; specifically: one who speaks for nonphysical beings or spirits. Perhaps the reason why you and Sean Copeland seem confused about this matter is because demons would be non-physical entities that can't "really" be destroyed if they're immortals from the Nether, a place outside of physical reality, and warlocks would be channelers who channel the destructive energies of those entities that don't really "exist". Of course, you'd deny that demons are non-physical beings that don't really "exist" but then claim that warlocks can exist without a demon as if their demons are actually ghosts. /rolls eyes--VisionOfPerfection (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection


 * I see, thanks for explaining. This "if fel is something that life is transformed into then fel is a form of life" is completely false though, just because you turned A into B doesn't mean that B is still (a form of) A. If I take a chunk of wood (A) and burn it, it produces energy (B), I've converted wood to energy, but that doesn't mean that the energy released is (a form of) wood, the energy and the wood are two completely different things. All that is left behind however is coal. So if we apply this to fel :  life (A) is turned into fel (B), but fel is NOT life. And what can be left behind is a soul shard/fragment (coal). (I'll update with a link).  -- ShellShockLive (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The warlocks of the black harvest conducted a ritual to summon Jagganoth without the use of any demon, therefore demonic magic can be used without having a demon, end of debate. Also demons are NOT the source of fel, fel and demons are two different things that can exist without the other, so yes you can access to one without needing access to the other. -- ShellShockLive (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not false at all because if fel is a form of magic that life is converted into, fel is a form of life - a fact supported by what some Doomguard stated: Sacrificial magic was considered the greatest violation of life. Sacrificial magic was a violation. And it was a violation of life. That is how it was described and that is what it technically is still. Fel - when regarding to World of Warcraft lore - cannot exist without life IF it's a form of magic that life is converted into and so it can quite literally be viewed as a form of life magic. It seems as if you're claiming that fel magic isn't a form of life magic merely because it's destructive, but then deny that fel magic is death magic. You'd deny that fel energy is necrotic energy even though 1) Metzen described it as death energy and 2) fel energy still, as a highly destructive force, would push things to a state of decay and eventual oblivion. Even after Dave Kosak claimed that fel magic isn't death magic, the movie-related novel describes fel energy as death energy multiple times so, to me, fel is still death magic when regarding to the MU. Fel energy is fel energy. It just doesn't become some an entirely different energy when regarding to some alternate universe. Death energy is necrotic power per the Chronicle and necrotic power is technically different from necromantic power, which you and others seem to be treating as death energy. Don't conflate the two. They're technically different--VisionOfPerfection (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
 * Don't tell me it's the end of the discussion when you still seem awfully confused. You're still acting as if demons are physical beings even though you're claiming demonologists don't need to involve themselves with a demon in order to obtain demonic energy as if their demons are actually non-existent ghosts. You can't obtain demonic energy without a demon because demonic energy is an energy defined by a demon. This is not difficult to understand--VisionOfPerfection (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
 * "if fel is a form of magic that life is converted into, fel is a form of life" No, for the same reason fire is not wood even though wood can be turned into fire. Also Chronicle listed them as two different things.
 * "Sacrificial magic is the greatest violation of life" because sacrificial magic destroys life. It is fueled by the destruction of life. That's all.
 * "Fel - when regarding to World of Warcraft lore - cannot exist without life" Not true, fel existed before demons, and before there was life in the Great Dark.
 * "Metzen described it as death energy" This has been retconned. Chronicle explained that Life and Death were separate things from Fel and Arcane. Death magic is death magic, life magic is life magic, and fel magic is fel magic. They are all completely separate.
 * "Dave Kosak claimed that fel magic isn't death magic" There you go. It's canon, no debate to have.
 * "the movie-related novel" IS NOT CANON. My god. Your only sources are 1) old, retconned ones or 2) entirely not canon ones. In the current canon fel magic is NOT death magic and it is NOT life magic.
 * "fel is still death magic" No it is not. You are unbelievable. You talked yourself about TWO canon sources of lore and DENIED them so you could rely on the stuff that is NOT canon and RETCONNED just because it fits what you want to believe. This is called confirmation bias but I had never seen this to such a level. What the hell. -- ShellShockLive (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Chill mate. You're doing good work on this wiki and I don't want to see you getting so upset that you eventually tire of being among us, or something. Xporc (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right. I love having discussions but this isn't one at all. It's like talking to a mirror which reflects only twisted things back at you. It doesn't feel like an exchange when one of the two parties is not listening. -- ShellShockLive (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if the Chronicle treats fel magic as if it isn't nature magic. Fel magic is a form of magic as per canon and it's something that warlocks convert life into (according to how canon would describe it).
 * Sacrificial magic was the greatest violation of life because sacrificial magic was a violation that cannot be a violation of life if there is no life. I don't get what's so difficult to understand about this. There literally can't be a violation "of life" if there is no life. If fel is something that can't exist without life, it's "of life". It's literally a form and it's a form that is of life.
 * It's funny how you're acting as if fel can exist without life even though you're acting as if it's something produced by destroying life. Are you trolling? Also, you need to provide canon proof that fel existed before demons.
 * That's nice that the Chronicle treats fel magic as if it isn't necromantic magic. The Chronicle establishes that fel magic is a highly destructive energy and, as a force, it would - or does - push things to a state of entropic decay and eventual oblivion, even if it isn't necromantic magic. Fel still seems to be necromantic magic breh breh and given that Blizzard still referred to fel magic as death magic even after the Chronicle came out, it's clear the very canon company you're upholding so much still agrees with me to an extent. Stop fighting and just say, hey "One (e.g. VisionOfPerfection) can consider fel magic to be death magic in a sense.
 * This is coming from someone who takes canon information then rewords it so that it means something entirely different. You're being hypocritical and unnecessarily editing things. Now, you can call me hostile as much as possible, I'm of the opinion that you're the one who is actually being hostile. Don't accuse me of not listening when you're not.--VisionOfPerfection (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection


 * Fel magic as per Chronicle is different from Death magic, and is different from Life magic. Can you understand this ? No matter how hard you want to interpret it ("if we can turn life into fel then fel is life !"), it can't be true. The overriding statement is that fel is not death magic, and fel is not life magic. Leave your interpretations out. This is the stated canon.
 * Fel magic is not necromantic magic and is not death magic. See this diagram. You can not state anything else that this diagram shows. End of debate.
 * "you're acting as if fel can exist without life even though you're acting as if it's something produced by destroying life" The exact same way hydrogen exists right now, but i can still produce more hydrogen if I wanted to. For the same reason, fel existed in the first place without life, but you can still produce fel by destroying life.
 * As for the source it is, surprise surprise, Chronicle again. It described the creation of Nether and the creation of fel, and then goes on to say that eventually "life would arise in the Twisting Nether" too in the form of demons, who would later learn how to manipulate fel. -- ShellShockLive (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know what the Chronicle states, but pay attention to what I'm stating. Fel magic is a highly destructive force according to the Chronicle and, as an entropic and destructive force (something that moves/pushes things), it would still - or does - push things to a state of entropic decay and eventual oblivion, even IF it's not death in the form of necromantic magic. Fel energy is still basically death energy no matter what you claim and there is absolutely no excuse that can justify you denying that fel magic can still be considered death energy. The very first canon definitions of fel energy, outside of the now non-canon RPG, were given to us when Metzen described fel energy as demonic, essentially entropic and essentially death energy. These are what fel energy is and the moment it stops being these things is the moment fel energy stops being fel energy. Clearly there is a reason why Metzen described fel energy as essentially death energy and I'm not going to act like the ignorant person you want me to act like and just disregard that reason merely because Blizzard's employees are wishy washy people who retcon information. You're not being reasonable and not seeking to come to an agreement. Instead of simply stating, "hey your point is totally valid and I guess a person can consider fel energy to be death energy", you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. And that's why this doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
 * I just find it funny how you're still calling arcane energy the lifeblood (which can be defined as life energy or a life-giving force) of a titan because the Chronicle states so, but denying that fel energy is essentially death energy even though it's arcane's opposite. I also find it funny that you're accusing me of presenting interpretations of the lore as canon lore when that's exactly what you're doing. It's a fact that fel magic is a form (source: Ultimate Visual Guide pg. 21) and it's a fact that fel magic was, as sacrificial magic, the greatest violation "of life". At this point, people should be aware that it's actually you who seems like a troll. This isn't some debate Shell. There literally can't be "the greatest violation" of life if there is no life to violate. If fel magic is sacrificial magic and sacrificial magic is a violation of life, fel magic cannot exist without life. You also need to stop treating fel magic as if it's sacrificial magic because no where does canon claim that fel magic is sacrificial magic. Just because fel magic is fueled by sacrifice doesn't mean it's sacrificial magic or a sacrificial force. Do you know what the Chronicle establishes? It establishes that Spirit is a life-giving force and, as all should know, a life-giving force is a force that sacrifices its life, giving it to something or someone else. Arguably, Spirit is sacrificial magic.
 * As for the source, surprise surprise, I just exposed you as a person who presents misinformation. No where did the Chronicle state fel magic can exist without a demon.
 * "For the same reason, fel existed in the first place without life, but you can still produce fel by destroying life." This is absolutely wrong and it will never make sense. EVER. First of all, fel energy is an energy and as an energy, it can't really be created. It's also a fact that fel energy is not literally a force with a stomach that needs to be fed or fueled. It's not some void lacking energy inside it and would need to be fueled by drawing life from living beings as if it's a vampiric force or vampiric shadowfire lacking life energy. If anything, fel energy has always existed since demons and their fel energies exist in the Nether and the Nether transcends all realities, basically defying what's real and what's logical. Don't claim fel magic is something is created if you don't even understand the implications of your claims. You claim fel magic is something created, but if what you're stating is true, fel magic has more than one part. If fel magic is specifically fueled by life, life MUST have something integral to (or a part of) fel magic and/or its existence. End of the story. The end. No excuses. Life has something that is a part of (or integral to) fel magic if fel magic is fueled by life and so even if fel magic isn't the force of life (nature magic), the force of life (nature magic) would still be - or is - a part of fel energy.
 * And I'm still waiting for you to explain how demons can have life when the energy they contain (fel) consumes life - at least according to you anyways. Your attempt to convince me that demons are living beings even though they're astral entities from an astral dimension that the most unstable energies coalesced into and have destructive energies that consume life is so pathetic. Let's be honest here.--VisionOfPerfection (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection


 * "At this point, people should be aware that it's actually you who seems like a troll" At this point, I assure you that everyone is collectively face-palming at the situation, and not for the reasons you may think. Xporc (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I assure you that you don't speak for everyone, so I'm not convinced you're telling the truth.--VisionOfPerfection (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection

---CONCLUSION---
 * Look, I tried, I really tried, to discuss with you, but it leads to nowhere, it is not productive, and it gets me mad. So I'm just going to list you what is canon.
 * - demons are living beings : Chronicle p21 : "life arose in the Twisting Nether, these creatures would be known as demons". End of debate. Source : Chronicle p21.
 * - the twisting nether is outside the great dark beyond : you already know that, I know that, we agree on this, no debate. Source : Chronicle p3.
 * - the twisting nether HAS physical parts : such as outland, mardum, and niskara. The game = the lore in this case. Also mardum was explicitly stated to be situated in the Nether in Chronicle, there is no debate to have either, Mardum is in the Nether, the end. Source : Chronicle chapter "The Burning Legion".
 * - fel existed before demons : Chronicle explained that the Nether was created alongside the Great Dark and its fel energies would pierce the boundaries between the two occasionally. Later, life would arise in the form of demons, and they would learn to wield the fel. Source : Chronicle p3 and p21.
 * - fel can be used without demons : the council of the black harvest conducted a ritual to summon a demon, without having a demon with them. No, they did not have a demon, and no, a demon was not secretly hiding in the room. Source : warlock class campaign quest "The Sixth".
 * Anything else, ANYTHING else that you might say that would go against this, would be false because it would go against the lore established right here, of which I've made you a list. So anything that you say going against the established lore will be removed. Do not be surprised. Demons are not undead, demons are not constructs, the nether has physical parts, fel existed before demons, and fel can be used without demons. Nobody cares for your interpretations, these are facts. -- ShellShockLive (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I already claimed this discussion seems to be going nowhere, so you're not providing anything insightful. What you ARE doing is presenting misinformation and presenting it as canon. You seem so ignorant that you don't even understand that I'm also using canon information to back me up. There's obviously some conflict and that is not entirely our faults, which is why there should be A SPECULATION SECTION providing both sides of an argument. But you keep on removing valid speculation with references. You're having an edit war because you want to and for no other reason.
 * the twisting nether has no physical parts. There are glitches in-game so using your very own logic, those glitches = lore because what happens in game is always lore to you.
 * fel didn't exist outside outside the Nether, you're presenting your headcanon as canon information. I already provided what the Chronicle states - word for word, but I'll do it again: "The most unstable energies coalesced into an astral dimension known as the Twisting Nether. Light and Void energies collided and bled together at the borders of this realm, throwing it into turmoil. Although tangentially linked to the Great Dark Beyond, the Twisting Nether existed outside the borders of the physical universe. Even so, the Twisting Nether's volatile energies would occasionally tear through the veil of the Great Dark, flooding into reality and warping creation." <---No where does the Chronicle state fel energies existed before demons. You're taking canon out of context, rewording information so that it's not true then presenting that false information as fact, and the moderators don't seem to be doing anything to stop your behavior. What you're doing is committing fraud, whether you understand what you're doing or not. But that's okay, I'm sure eventually you'll look back at this page and say, "I was wrong."
 * Fel cannot be used without demons because fel energy is demonic. You don't have a single canon source outright stating that it can. You're using in-game mechanics/reasons as lore.
 * Anything else, anything else that you might say that would go against this, would be false because it would go against the lore established right here, of which I've made you a list. Demons are not living if their energies consume life, the nether doesn't have physical parts, fel didn't exist before demons, and fel cannot be used without demons. Nobody cares for your interpretation, these are facts. Animated Fel is a demon. Like a taste of your own medicine?
 * What now Shell? Are you still going to deny that demonologists need to involve themselves with a demon?--VisionOfPerfection (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)VisionOfPerfection
 * ShellShock, Vision, I'm going to ask both of you to cool it because this has gotten well out of hand. Giving you both one warning to stop, take a break, cool off, and MAYBE at least try to look at the other person's point of view instead of accusing them of fraud and assuming bad faith. I advise you to take this warning seriously, because there will not be a second one. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

A short break
Your theories on Warcraft magic have spiraled out of control again leading to several pages in need of cleanup, so I am mandating that you take a short break from the wiki while your edits are reassessed.-- 21:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

A longer break
After deliberating with other admins, especially in light of recent comments made about Blizzard developers and your repeated history of making questionable edits on a number of Warcraft magic-related articles, I'm banning you from the wiki for a period of one year. More specifically, enough bans under the disruptive editing policy is what led to the ban duration. There was talk of a permanent ban, but I am not yet in favor of this. You are welcome to email me with any concerns you have. -- k_d3 04:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As the pattern of contentious and low-quality edits to magic-related articles continued after this block expired, I'm going to apply a longer one. Please reconsider your approach during the next three years. — foxlit (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)