User talk:Kirkburn31335/Archive03

Archived 31st December 2006

Sry

Yeah, sry if I took the Horde thing too far. I got carried away in the pages. I deleted Brox's quote, because, well, when did he say that???I dont remember him to say it, plus its kinda racist against tauren making him be presented as "racist" in a way which is a bad way to introduce a hero. The bronze dragonflight addition I got from Day of the Dragon book, where it stated(and blues are stated to be no smaller than other dragons having "large wings carrying their muscular bodies") the Bronze was the size of the Blue. This kinda object against the bronze dragonflight being "small". --Baldr 21:43, 3 October 2006 (EDT)

I realise that, but try to say it in a more 'encyclopedia-type' way - e.g. don't refer to them as the 'Blues', but as the Blue Dragonflight - just looks a bit more professional, that's all :) -- Kirkburn (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2006 (EDT)

Ok I'm looking for the page in the Sundering book right now. And I do remember this quote, trust me (hey, ain't I a Bookkeeper ? ^^).

We just CAN'T delete pieces of information just because it's not right in the way we want to show something. If he has said this quote, we MUSTN'T hide it AT ALL. Misinformation can lead to war, sometimes, and as an AMA member I am well aware of that. If somehow because of that quote Broxigar was considered racist by the majority, the fact that he was a hero MUSTN'T make you think he was perfect and after reading the article you HAVE to know that he was racist. Imo that quote doesn't show much, but after reading the Trilogy I just thought Broxigar hadn't been described much and I think Knaak kind of "cheated" with this character. Ok, he's wounded Sargeras, but it's because he's totally stubborn and as strong as twenty trucks, which has never made a hero so far. Introducing someone is displaying all the info we have on him, not just showing his good moods.--K ) (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2006 (EDT)

Ok, well u know what I mean by blues...<sigh>and sry, I DIDN'T remeber brox's quote. Gosh I aint Richard A. Knaak.

I think we're far too paranoid when we're thinking that quote makes Brox racist. In fact, I strongly suspect that he was saying that to lighten the mood a little. The question isn't really if the quote's racist or not, but whether it's memorable enough. --Ragestorm 18:54, 4 October 2006 (EDT)

Enough about brox, well anyway. In the Day of the Dragon...it said that the Bronze DRAGON was as big as the Bronze dragon. Since blues are no smallet than others, Manual of Monsters or not, the Bronze dragonflight is not to be considered small.In my opinion.

Just checking for clarity's sake: Are we talking small as in numbers or size of individuals here?   --Mikk (T) 20:04, 4 October 2006 (EDT)

We talkin 'bout the size of the drangons.

Bugmenotplz and Bugmenot1010

I recall you blocking User:Bugmenot for being an account registration bypassing website, think User:Bugmenot1010 and User:Bugmenotplz fall in this category? [1] --Adys 05:41, 9 October 2006 (EDT)

I looked, but they're not from Bugmenot.com   --Mikk (T) 07:02, 9 October 2006 (EDT)

edited

yer, was questioning myself as i removed that line, dont really like having 2 opposing truths in the same subject, but there's a wiki, and history for :) CJ 13:22, 24 October 2006 (EDT)

Icons

I fixed the leather icon. As for BC icons, some of them change every beta patch, so I prefer doing that at the release :-) --Adys 19:20, 25 October 2006 (EDT)

Sig

Sorry about that. Didn't know that sig style was exclusivly for admins. If there isn't, I'd definitely recommend a policy note about that somewhere so others don't make the same mistake. If there is, definitely make it more visible. User:Montag/sig 16:21, 27 October 2006 (EDT)

True, there's no page saying it. It's an idea, but I'm not a fan of putting policies on everything. If it becomes a problem, maybe :) Thanks for changing it! -- Kirkburn (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2006 (EDT)

Wikipedia thoughts

Here follows the thoughts of the author and not those of the wiki itself :)

As you may have noticed, I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned with Wikipedia. For those that help out there, this is not attack on you, it is an annoyance with the crazy and increasingly barmy amounts of bureaucracy and edit wars which occur there. I do not wish for this wiki to ever become like this. I will not put a policy on everything that moves, because, quite frankly, it doesn't need it. Common sense is often best. Putting a policy on whether one can add a spolier tag to articles is not my style and never will be - if you feel the article needs one, damn well add it.

So why am I saying this now? Well, we've been nominated for deletion for the third time on the wiki (wikipedia:WoWWiki) for what seem like frivolous reasons to me. (Please note: I'm not soliciting votes, only post on there if you have something to add to the discussion about the notability of this site. You, after all, are most likely to know!). Argh. -- Kirkburn (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2006 (EDT)

So it's been deleted. Ho hum, one up for bureaucracy. -- Kirkburn (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2006 (EST)

Woot.

[2]. Nerf me. -- Kirkburn (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2006 (EST)

Grats! Maybe I'll see you there.  ;-) --DarkRyder 21:18, 1 November 2006 (EST)

=D Here's hoping it comes soon! -- Kirkburn (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2006 (EST)

Grats :-) Would love to know on which realm you're going. My mage is on Tempest Keep (EU) :-) --Adys 17:52, 3 November 2006 (EST)

Gawd knows, probably won't get my key(s) until Tuesday anyway :/ See you online! -- Kirkburn (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2006 (EST)

Known_vandals Spazzz entry odd

What's going on in Project:Known_vandals? What does "Reverted ban. Learn how to revert!" mean? --Fandyllic (talk) 2:55 PM PST 6 Nov 2006

Changed it to make more sense. After the ban he emailed me to explain he was trying to revert the vandalism, but he wasn't doing it in an understandable way (i.e. wiping the article entirely first), and thus followed an email convo. The comment was a poke at him :) Apologies, I was in a rush! -- Kirkburn (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2006 (EST)

Okay, I figured it was something like that. --Fandyllic (talk) 7:54 PM PST 6 Nov 2006

Vandalism of Fervor Crushridge discussion

I will not let this go I am afraid. I also wish to open discussion on what you feel is vandalism of fervor guild information on the server Crushridge.

I would like to know your logic and reasons for removing information critical to many who have to deal with and a notorious guild on Crushridge. Information regarding the guild existed long before I got there and I just expanded on accurate and truthful information. I do believe if it was false it would be vandalism but such truthful and accurate information is protected under 1st amendment rights. I am not just some random vandal and I am not going to let this go easily. I would like an explanation regarding deletion of truthful and accurate information. I consider such deletions the true vandalism in this situation.

The wiki is not the place for vendettas. They have been removed in the past, there is no reason why they should be allowed today. The 1st amendment rights don't apply to private venues. --Gryphon 02:33, 11 November 2006 (EST)

It's pretty straightforward. As written out in the WoW Wiki Do Not Post policy under "Defamatory content". Content against the policy of the Wiki is clearly going to be removed, can't get any clearer than that. --Tusva 02:42, 11 November 2006 (EST)

I see your point your welcome to delete the entry then. But as for first amendment rights on private property. That is far from cut an dry. First amendment rights on private property has be upheld in the supreme court. You should check your legal information. I am no vandal though

I reposted it not knowing the policy information within the page and it was already heading there before i got there. just to further that information.

It is my right to post and your right to delete in any legal sense the post is not illegal as suggested and not vandalism but I agree it does break policy. Vandalism suggests legal wrong doing. I will resist that term. I had no intent to cause damage obviously. --Deathmolor 01:18, 11 November 2006 (MST)

It is our right to delete whatever we wish to delete, and don't start dragging silly comments about the First Amendment into this. This website is not the place for such comments on other guilds - if you have a problem with them, tell Blizzard. Posting it here helps no-one, and merely encourages more to do the same on other guild pages. This is not a censoring of 'the truth', but a removal of DNP content. -- Kirkburn (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2006 (EST)

Did u even read my response Kirkburn? i was agreeing with removal after it was explained. I also pretty much said what u said as well. indicating yes u have the right to remove just as much as i have the right to say things which are truth. If your not going to read my response fine but you probably should before you respond. The whole nature of my post here in the end here was to explain the situation. Also vandalism is a legal term, which is the willful destruction of private property or literary works and so forth. By calling someone a vandal you opening up a can of legal worms. The site sustained no damage and also not willful. You might want to rethink the use of the term before you accuse others of such things. The only damage which probably was sustained is your time to quick delete. Which i do believe only takes you 1 second. Hardly a loss or damage also you open the site up for the public to edit. Your model of business is based on this so you welcome entries but place rules to safe guard your site from conflicts. I understand and respect that. But one does not instantly become a vandal for telling the truth. --Deathmolor 07:22, 12 November 2006 (MST)

I have no idea why you insist on taking this personally. Posting DNP content is effectively vandalism. It just is. You have not been banned, only warned, and we are trying to explain why you are not allowed to post that stuff here. Again, please stop trying to drag 'legality' into this, it has absolutely no place here - this is not a business, I am not american, your broke our policies, etc, etc... And whether you are telling the truth is debatable - we have no way of knowing whether you are libelling someone else, so we delete it. You recreated the article after deletion by an admin, therefore you are a vandal. Don't like the term? Live with it. -- Kirkburn (talk) 10:55, 12 November 2006 (EST)

Two notes on legal issues: 1) Assuming this server is located in the US, your first amendment rights do exist in this context, and you may post what you want. However, you give up the ownership of the intellectual property you post in a wiki setting. So anyone can edit (or in this case remove) your content. 2) Vandalism is an accepted wiki term for unwanted content of such a degree that it significantly deflates the value of the article. It is not a legal term until used in a legal context, so your claim that you "open up a legal can of worms" is irrelevant until brought before a court, in which case the term libel would be used instead.

We trust our admins to make good decisions, since we aren't Wikipedia and place our trust in people rather than bureaucracies. We respect their decisions enough to make them pretty much final. User:Montag/sig 19:29, 14 November 2006 (EST)

A few points: 1) First amendment protections only apply to government interventions or agencies recieving government support. This does not apply to Wowpedia. Maybe you should visit the ACLU site for a few pointers. 2) The definition of vandalism is only a legal term insofar as local jurisdictions may create rules regarding vandalism and there is no universal legal definition of vandalism, therefore calling someone a vandal only has relevance depending on the local rules. Hey! Guess what, the locality of WoWWiki is WoWWiki! We admins make the rules! You broke the rules. 3) You were identified as a potential vandal. However, this means nothing substantive until you get banned. Any registered user can revert unprotected pages regardless of being called a vandal or not and admins freuqently delete content based on policy regardless of whether the author is identified as a potential vandal. 4) I changed your (Deathmolor) status to "suspect", since I think even Kirkburn can agree you did not intend to commit vandalism, althought you did violate policy.

I'll leave it up to Kirkburn if he wants to remove you from the known vandals list entirely. --Fandyllic (talk) 2:54 PM PST 13 Nov 2006

Yeah, I'll remove him :) Lessons have been learnt, dicussions have been had! Deathmolor, apologies if I was 'short' with you earlier, but it gets to me when people start dragging 'irrelevant' stuff into things (noticed my big "We're not Wikipedia" sign? ;). -- Kirkburn (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2006 (EST)

Succession and ID boxes

Have a look at Tyrande Whisperwind. --Ragestorm 23:33, 11 October 2006 (EDT)

Ah, nice one. I fiddled with it and made it work inside a {{Wowbox}}. I used that on Tyrande's page now.   --Mikk (T) 13:13, 12 October 2006 (EDT)

Excellent. Shall I begin transplantation to the other lore character pages? --Ragestorm 16:29, 12 October 2006 (EDT)

Very nice! Fine by me :) -- Kirkburn (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2006 (EDT)

Succession Box idea up for review on Archimonde.--Ragestorm 17:41, 3 November 2006 (EST)

Can You Grant Bot Tags?

Can you add bot tags to accounts or no? --Hobinheim 08:29, 26 November 2006 (EST)

Nope, sorry, only Fandy :(

As an aside, I'm not dead, just busying myself with other things atm. The wiki seems to be running pretty well these days :D -- Kirkburn (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2006 (EST)

Community Info

I was looking for any IRC reference in this section, but found none. At least in Europe, lots of servers have a channel i QuakeNet; #runetotem, #darksorrow, #boulderfist to mention a few (guilds as well, I wont give any examples cause there are just too few visitors). Klicking on Kirkburn, the first thing I noticed is how to get in touch with IRC reference...

Now, Im not used to Wiki and had to create an account to write this. Maybe I should just have added the section myself?

--Svarvsven 06:03, 2 December 2006 (EST)

This has since been sorted :) -- Kirkburn ^{< talk · contr >} 14:01, 31 December 2006 (EST)