User talk:Dark T Zeratul/Archive01

Old Gods & Stuff

Hey this is 11, remember the old gods page. I ust want to say that thisis fan fiction, and another thing WHAT?

Centaurs: 1.the Gelkis is a centaur clan that is civilised and the Alliance as interested in friendship with Centaurs, and Brann does believe that the Gelkis are the most open to discussions with outsiders, and he believes that it may be possible to get the tribe to side with the Alliance.

2. the Gelkis show respect for Theradras, and when the Old Gods declared war they would likely go after their past lieutenants to get revenge for letting them lose the war, and by destroying their family and offspring they could get the ultimate revenge. So the centaur loving Theradreas will defend her by any means neccessary.

Kobold: Kobolds and Harpies are very close and when the Old gods returned they'ld need some land and slaves so they probably went after the harpies since they say them as weak little birdies. And when they did he harpies needed help and couldn't ask the alliace or horde because everybody hates them, except the kobolds and they do have history together so they would help them out by by having some allies to get supplies and ince the kobolds have some allies in the horde why won't they acpt them. - Nadur

Antioch?

Just confirming that this is the DTZ. -Flyspeck 19:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The one and only. - Dark T Zeratul 19:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Been a damn long time, glad to know you're still out and about. -ThVoJenkins (kronos_recker) 19:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Highlord Kruul

Unless you've actually seen him in Blasted Lands I'm going to revert your change. General opinion is that he does not spawn in Kazzak's old spawn point. --User:Psyker7/Sig 04:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning VanCleef

Since you haven't replied to that discussion in more than two months, I'll just ask it here: When does Mathias Shaw get a chance to determine if VanCleef's head is actually, well, VanCleef's head? You hand the quest in to Gryan Stoutmantle, and I don't see any indication that the head is sent to be examined by the SI:7 at Stormwind. And why would the Defias Traitor recognize VanCleef's head, the head of a man he probably saw, if he even saw, always wearing a mask. I don't even think the Traitor even would be asked to verify the identity of the head anyway. Xavius, the Satyr Lord (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Abbendises

If you have the comic, you wouldn't mind uh putting up a scan of Abbendis' daughter?

If there are any images of the father at the time of Scarlet Crusade it would be nice as well.Baggins (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the Scarlet Crusade has actually been formed yet at this point in the comic (it goes up to shortly after Dathrohan's possession and Balnazzar/Varimathras conspiring to kill Mograine); they're still just a group of former Silver Hand members. Both Abbendises are featured, however. You want individual pictures, or the one of them together? Or both? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, individual pictures, and a "father and daughter" picture, would be cool. BTW, they need to give each one their own names :p...Baggins (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll get some scans when I've got the chance. And yes, I agree. First names would be great. Having two characters named simply "Abbendis" is a tad confusing. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 04:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow...

Your attunement chart...simply awesome! I'm not sure what's more complicated, your chart or the April Fools BT attunement chart. Toran Wildpaw of the Frenzyheart (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I only did the pre-BC side; the BC side was done by someone else. And really, it's considerably less complicated than it looks, primarily because it's several different attunements all charted alongside each other (which is why peoples' claims of the old Hyjal attunement being too long were misleading; the actual attunement only required completing SSC and TK, but the SSC and TK attunements were getting lumped into it). -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Still awesome nonetheless :). Toran Wildpaw of the Frenzyheart (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Info Tag

This mostly informational. Someone probably should have tagged you earlier! Thanks for the contributions. -Howbizr (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Username

Greetings Dark 'T' Zeratul.

i was wondering if you could be a little bit more creative in your name creations rather than changing a single fucking character so it is extremely similar to my name. For Fucks Sake its people like you taht ruin this awsome website here.

Regards, "the real" Dark V Zeratul

ps. Go Fuck Youself

Thank you, but I've had this username since 1998 and that's not about to change. Incidentally, it's people like me that've been on this website for years and contributed quite a bit. P.S, you've been reported to the admins. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 06:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Relative(s)

So, I see my suggestion on Kurtalos talk page ended on K'J and Archimonde. But can't we understand "Relative(s)" as an extention to best friend, nemesis and other? Look at Durotan & Orgrim and Durotan & Nightstalker & Sharptooth. It does not limitate to the familials bounds. Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 19:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Because where does it end? Do we go to Arthas's page and add Jaina, Uther, Muradin, and the captains from Warcraft 3? Does Illidan's page get Kael'thas, Vashj, Akama, and Maiev? Do we add every single Legion race, ever, to Sargeras's page? It's called relatives for a reason. Adding a full list of every major character everyone has ever interacted with is going to get way out of hand very very quickly. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well Arthas is already (and since long) with Uther and Muradin as Mentor(s) and Invincible (Arthas' steed), Ner'zhul (Conjoined spirit of Lich King) as Relative(s).

You "see too big", only the major ones are under those categories. We are not adding every Burning Legion races or Named demons under Sargeras's Student(s).

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 07:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Heroic page

It's cause you didn't have the Chestplate of the Frostborn Hero (heroic) page finished... you left out |disambigpage=Chestplate of the Frostborn Hero (heroic). Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 06:26, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll remember that in the future. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 06:28, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

Seasonal vs Hallow's End

There are at least some of the quests that are still flagged as "seasonal" vs "Hallow's End". I assume the ones you edited are ones you observed as changed in-game? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:30, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Stormwind Harbor Guard

Sorry, I was interrupted in creating the new NPC page. Normally I change the data into the appropriate data immediately. Hans Kamp (talk) 09:30, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Zinlis

Can we call "BS" here? (Not to mention "idiot"...) --Joshmaul (talk) 05:06, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

Well OBVIOUSLY. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 05:07, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

Deathbringer Saurfang

Hence "seems," and the fact that it was under speculations.

Jackass. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gravenimage (talk · contr).

There is a policy on this wiki against posting content that has been datamined and has not yet appeared on the PTR, such as pretty much everything about the Deathbringer fight. I suggest you also refrain from insulting people for following the wiki's rules, as it's a good way to not be here much longer. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:13, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Original research

Re 'fact tags on emails' - I do original research when possible. I've had experience where my research was right, and established fact 'from the web' was wrong. And what is 'freely available', as you put it, is on occasion wrong. Said original research, on the other hand, sometimes falls quite far from being considered easy to acquire. Could you be a bit less cavalier with the term, please? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 00:35, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Tolkien

The pop culture thing is too large anyway, it should be split not expanded. (By the way, while I am your opponent in the debate, you are certainly good at debating.) BobNamataki (talk) 00:03, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

Heh, well if you feel really strong about deleting it altogether I probably wouldn't argue. Thanks for the compliment, too. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:07, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

Saurfang the Younger

Shouldn't the page have been moved to Dranosh Saurfang not Dranosh Younger? Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 23:57, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

D'oh. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:58, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 23:59, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

Moved to the proper name, and fixed the redirects. Thanks for pointing that out. You can delete the Dranosh Younger pages. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:00, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Marked for Speedy Delete

I saw you marked It's a Trap! (25 player) for Speedy Deletion and you're reason was because it was removed from the Game. Articles that talk about things removed from the game aren't usually deleted. Instead, they're usually marked with {{Removedfromgame}}. Have you considered putting that in? TeeSon5 (talk)

Yes. These achievements were removed from the PTR, so they were technically never in the game in the first place. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 03:37, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Watchdogs!

You now have patroller rights! . Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 22:21, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Mwahahahaha. Thus does my evil plan for world domination begin! Tremble and despair, for the age of darkness is nigh upon you! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahaha*ahem* Sorry. Don't know what came over me there. I meant to say thank you. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:39, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

/casts a spell of protection. I'll just be over here *Slowly walks away* =P Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 22:42, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Significant changes ...

Hi, I saw where you went back and re-did a portion of the pages I have worked on today. Looking at your 'contrib' I can see that you have been at this for a while. Where you changed my info, I can see that the code on your edits is a bit more streamlined and different in places. If you will contact me with any areas where I make mistakes, (or items can be clarified or improved) I will happily make the corrections so that I can learn the proper/ accepted way of doing something. I am perusing wowwiki help and other wowwiki pages in order to ensure the information I add conforms, but sometimes that isn't the best way. Thanks DLanyon (talk) 13:07, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Sorry!

Sorry 'bout the cheeky comment, it was actually my little brother trying to be a know-it-all. :P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kookamooka (talk · contr).

Loot page.

I saw that you moved the loot table back under the wall of text strategy and macros. The loot should come ahead in my opinion, since it's what people are usually interested in. Also, the whole strategy section is UGLY, and need to be completely rewritten. Cityhunter0505 - Etsuko (talk) 02:26, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the strategy thing, but on every other page loot is after strategy. I also disagree with it being what people are usually interested in, since you can get loot at a dozen other places. Besides which, you can't get the loot if you don't have the strategy. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 02:37, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

True enough. Just need to redo the strategy section, because it's really ugly, and all the sub-sections take way too much place in the index. Cityhunter0505 - Etsuko (talk) 02:54, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

I cropped it considerably. Hopefully someone who knows the fight better can come along and improve it some. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 02:54, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

What's the speculation page for then?

If the speculation section isn't for theories then what is it for? Speculation is content in WoWWiki articles which consists of speculations and theories on Warcraft lore, but are not seen as fan fiction or rumors. According to the article on speculation that is what that section is for. Now, here is what you said; TLA, can you please stop adding ridiculous and baseless speculation? The speculation section is not for every crackpot theory someone comes up with.) My speculation that I made was based on the LACK of credible evidence of Aiden's betrayal, since all the sources indicating it are from the Alliance POV, leaving his "betrayal" viewed in a very skewed fashion. --The last Alterac (talk) 05:12, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

TLA i'll keep my response short and simple because it's all this conversation deserves and i think it'll almost certainly either go over your head or be ignored: Wowwiki considers WC2 and Tides of Darkness by Aaron Rosenberg credible sources. Period. Continuing to act in this manner can be construed as vandalism and you know where that leads. Please do everyone a favor and get a few people opinions on the talk page before editing anymore lore articles.Warthok Talk Contribs 05:59, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I meant by "credible sources". I was reffering to how we only ever hear the Alliance's POW in the sources. Did any of the sources discuss the Horde or Aiden's side of the story? The reason for me saying this is that there is no mention of Alterac's betrayal during the Horde Campaign. After checking the Beyond The Dark Portal Battles' page. I found only one sentence that shows the Horde's side of the fact that Alterac betrayed the Alliance The spies of the Bleeding Hollow clan have confirmed that this blade was crafted by the weaponsmiths of Alterac. These humans are the same that were willing to betray their own brothers,. Now the word "willing" implies that it is something they would of done it, but let's just say it means that they did do it, ok?

That means despite all your effort, you couldn't even prove me wrong. But I managed to do so my self, just by checking my sources, so you lost by not giving me a source that showed the Hordes perspective of the betrayal and I lost by showing a source that actually showed the horde perspective. Understand?--The last Alterac (talk) 07:01, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

It's not a point of view issue when we see the events unfolding in front of our very eyes and you completely ignored the fact i pointed that source out to you. Lets not even get into the countless times this particular event has been refered back to in manuals, rpgs and in game books. Let me make this perfectly clear to you: you lack a thorough understanding of Warcraft lore. Your edits may be well intentioned, though i'm begining to think more and more they are made simply to antagonize those of us that do take this seriously. Point being in cases where you don't understand the situation 100%, such as this, use the talk page to ask around before you go around vandalizing articles. You shouldn't be hitting the save page unless you are almost absolutely sure about your edits. This isn't a case about egos and "winning" or "losing" TLA, though based on your comments it certainly seems to be whats on your mind despite the fact you've hardly made any constructive edits. This is about keep misinformation and trash out of the articles. Thats all any of us care about.Warthok Talk Contribs 07:11, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

I checked the source, but the source didn't say any thing. Not once in the Article of "Tides of Darkness" did it mention Alterac's betrayal, if you don't believe me, see for your self. =Tides of Darkness is a novel by Aaron Rosenberg focusing on the events of Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness. Contents [hide]

• 1 Summary
• 2 Back of Book Description
• 3 Characters

o 3.1 Main characters o 3.2 Supporting characters o 3.3 Minor characters

• 4 External links

[edit] Summary

This novel covers the events of the Second War. It features Turalyon, King Terenas, Anduin Lothar, Orgrim Doomhammer, Gul'dan, Khadgar, and Alleria Windrunner as main characters.

The Orcish Horde, now led by Orgrim Doomhammer, has destroyed the nation of Azeroth. Anduin Lothar knows that land is lost, and so hatches a desperate plot; take the people away and enlist the aid of humanity's rivals, the Elves and Dwarves.

The book begins with Anduin Lothar landing on the shores of Lordaeron, and goes through the events occurring in Warcraft II. [edit] Back of Book Description

After killing the corrupt Warchief Blackhand, Orgrim Doomhammer was quick to seize control over the Orcish Horde. Now he is determined to conquer the rest of Azeroth so that his people will once again have a home of their own in the World of Warcraft.

Anduin Lothar, former Champion of Stormwind, has left his shattered homeland behind and led his people across the Great Sea to the shores of Lordaeron. There, with the aid of the noble King Terenas, he forges a mighty Alliance with the other human nations. But even that may not be enough to stop the Horde's merciless onslaught. Elves, dwarves, and trolls enter the fray as the two emerging factions vie for dominance. Will the valiant Alliance prevail, or will the Horde's tide of darkness consume the last vestiges of freedom on Azeroth? [1] " ' ' This is all the information in the article that should of said something about the betrayal but didn't. Unless you can give me the line of text in that article that says what you are saying, then you are wrong.--The last Alterac (talk) 07:46, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

My point being. Your source did not state said event, while mine did.--The last Alterac (talk) 07:51, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Because it's in the freaking book! Do you even know what a book IS!? You're telling him it doesn't appear in his source and quoting the description of the source to tell him he's wrong. THAT. DOES. NOT. WORK. Seriously here, I think you're just continuing this travesty for the explicit purpose of antagonizing us. Either that or your ego can't possibly comprehend that you might possibly be wrong and so you're doing everything you can to "save face" in an argument where no one really gives a damn who "wins" or "loses" because it's not a debate. Check your ego at the door or get out. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 08:02, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Alterac it's really difficult to continue this conversation without feeling like i need to be talking down to you. Look...at...the...sources! The Sources. The sources are the game itself, and the novel itself, not wowwiki's page on said topics. Play the mission where this betrayal happens. Read the novel. Alterac's betrayal is not a footnote, it's the focus of several chapters. Simply because something does not exist on wowwiki does not mean it doesn't exist, nor does it give you carblanche to vandalize articles. Wowwiki is here to summarize events not copy them down word for word. Do you understand the difference? Furthermore this particular subject is meantioned on pages such as Alterac, the Second War, the Syndicate, etc...with citations i might add, if you just cared enough to look. I am not wrong, there is no true debate, just me telling you what's what. You haven't acted in a way deserving of anything neededing to be proven to you. The editors are not here to be at your beck and call everytime you shout "prove it!" when you clearly have done very little research on any of the subjects yourself and the matierial is all readily available. You spend ten times more energy being proven wrong again and again and again than it would for you to do a little research. If you don't change your ways and start using the talk pages before making any major edits they are going to continue to be instantly reverted and you are only going to succeed in getting yourself banned.Warthok Talk Contribs 08:08, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Um, I am not denieing the fact that Alterac was destroyed during the second war, my point was that there seemed to be a lack of sources from the Horde POV that mention Alterac's betrayal. And my theory was that maybe Alterac didn't betray, rather it was the betrayee instead of the betrayer(Uther/Lothar might of come up with the wrong Hypothesis and attacked Alterac). While trying to find a source from the Horde's POV I came across that little detail from the page about a list of battles in Beyond The Dark Portal. And in the fourth battle, it mentions something of a dagger crafted by a blacksmith of Alterac "the same humans that were willing to betray their brothers". And single sentence, as I already admitted it, proved me wrong. The reason I found the book a dead end source was because; both, I didn't own the book and knew of no copies' location, so I couldn't verify that source. So if I can not verify a source, through checking the page on it or finding a copy, it means I have no way to tell if it is canon.

As I said earlier, the reason I started that speculation was because I noticed a sufficient lack of Horde recounts of Alterac actually betraying, beyond the one I mentioned, as I said, did prove me wrong.--The last Alterac (talk) 09:05, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Were you seriously doubting the canonicity of the official novelization of Warcraft 2 simply because you didn't read it? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 09:07, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't not didn't. But sadly yes, that's why I was doubting it's canoninity, (That and, since I didn't read it I have no idea what the text would of said. So I had to assume every thing was a lie, just to be safe, but paranoid.) --The last Alterac (talk) 09:33, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Which is why it might be a good idea to run these things by the community on the talk page before editing articles with sources you know exist but may not have read. Especialy something as frivilous as speculation where theres no pressing need for it to be added immediately.Warthok Talk Contribs 09:37, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Don't suppose you could do a quick check for me...

I'm looking at the top end Tier 10 and Tier 9 armor sets, and the more I look, the more fishy the "totally triumphant" prefix looks for the Tier 9. Could you do a quick verification that the top end Tier 9 armor set name uses "Totally Triumphant"? Wowhead does not, Thottbot is its usual muddled self... --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:10, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

On a Palret T9 set: http://www.wowhead.com/?search=Liadrin%27s+Battlegear

Names from WoWhead and in-game are:

 [Liadrin's Shoulderplates of Conquest] for Conqueror's Liadrin's Battlegear ilvl232

 [Liadrin's Shoulderplates of Triumph] for Triumphant Liadrin's Battlegear ilvl245

 [Liadrin's Shoulderplates of Triumph] for Triumphant Liadrin's Battlegear (heroic) ilvl258

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 19:21, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure how this ended up on my talk page, but I don't think I've ever seen the "Totally Triumphant" prefix either. I'd support moving them all to Triumphant <Set Name> (heroic). -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:30, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Ended up on your page as a) I saw you'd edited recently, and hoped you also had a live WoW client handy, b) A'noob fit that description, and c) you were just lucky, I guess. Some of the pages have already been moved, some are on their way. There are a LOT of redirects to kill too. That, or we need someone who can move-without-redirect. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:28, January 8, 2010 (UTC)