User talk:Timolas
Samuro did not necessarilly kill Bloodbeak. After Samuro destroys the human outpost, the player is granted control of Rexxar and his forces again along with Jaina to kill the Naga at the bottom half of the map. At this time Rexxar's forces could have killed Bloodbeak. The edit that you made to change the forces that killed Bloodbeak to Samuro is one of the two possiblities. -- User:TopDread 19:40 24 Jan {EST}
- Hey why did you cancel the background I'd written on the Rhahk'Zor page ? It's actually possible, you can't do it !
- And, mainly, why do you keep deleting stuff on pages ?--K ) (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2006 (EDT)
- I would agree with Kirochi here - most of your recent edits seem to be about deleting valid information. This is not acceptable, especially since you do not give any reason why. Consider this a formal warning, and please explain yourself. -- Kirkburn (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2006 (EDT)
I delete information that is incorrect. It is not possible that Rhahk'Zor was left over from that slaughter in the Deadmines. It happened so many years ago, and there is no information on that character besides what we see. It isn't official background, and leading people astray with speculation, is not acceptable, not deleting information that is not correct. As for my other edits, take for example Arugal. There was that information that a group of Forsaken stormed his base and killed him. News here - just because he is an instance boss doesn't mean he is classified as dead. Scarlet Commander Mograine is an instance boss, but that doesn't mean adventurers kill him. His 'Lore' death is being killed by his father. Illidan, Vashj and Kael in Outland are instance bosses, but Metzen confirmed that they will not be killed in the lore just because of that.
Hence I delete invalid information stating things that aren't true, or just useless speculation. Thank you. Your warning was not really needed. --Timolas 09:48, 12 October 2006
- I think both parties are right and wrong. Timolas could have edited the note about Rhahk'Zor to make it more accurate without completely deleting it without any change note or mention on the discussion page. A simple ", but this is mostly speculation and not confirmed by any known lore" would have sufficed. However, Timolas is right that the note should have been noted as speculation. I think what is currently there sounds good. --Fandyllic (talk) 10:25 AM PDT 12 Oct 2006
Thank you, the last edit I made myself, adding that it is speculation. --Timolas
- I'm not sorry for my approach - as an admin, if I hear a complaint about someone removing info, giving no reason and I see this to be true, I will restore what was deleted. In future, if you don't want me knocking on your doorstep again, say why you remove stuff', don't expect people to magically know why you've removed half an article! :) -- Kirkburn (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2006 (EDT)
SoL
I responded on my talk page, but since that may be hard to find - I agree. I don't want it coming up again, and specifically told people to leave it. I would check the thread now, but I'm just getting blank pages :( Mainly, I'm glad that you feel okay contributing to both sites - it's not as if we're mutually exclusive! 
User:Kirkburn/Sig3 23:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I agree, thank you for the reply! As for the site, it seems to be going through a rough phase - we've had a few days of down time and now this blank page problem is cropping back up again. Not sure why. It should be fixed soon though. I apologise for any past friction I've caused on my part. --Timolas 00:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- No worries! When I did look recently I was pleasently surprised at the complete lack of WoWWiki bashing going on (though links are still rare, but you can't get everything!). By the way, we're completely open to linking to related SoL threads on here - say you came across a very interesting thread concerning Malygos, by all means add a link from here to it! User:Kirkburn/Sig3 00:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Part Deux
Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I have posted on the forum :) I can't stop him, but I can talk to him on the IRC channel. Kirkburn talk contr 16:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, appreciated. Nobody wants old tensions to spring to new life. Dramatically speaking. --Timolas 17:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Novel information
Just a warning that use of "novel template" is not a proper citation method. Please use ref or cite to add proper page citations.Baggins (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Redirect editing
Responding to your question on Talk:Luc Valonforth.
I find the easiest way is to go to the page the redirect redirects to through the redirect (If that makes any sense), and then click on the tiny blue message that appears on top of the page. This will take you to the redirect itself, and you can edit the link like any other from there.--SWM2448 20:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The Captain
Is there a reason why you pretty much merged the information on Luc Valonforth with Captain Falric? It is pretty much established already that Luc Valonforth is the same character as The Captain in Warcraft III. --g0urra[T҂C] 14:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- No. The Rise of the Lich King established that Falric was the Captain, and that Valonforth was a minor captain who only appears for the meeting with the emissary. I'll edit the article to explain it further. --Timolas (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Timolas coing to you since you seem to know most about The Captain and figured you might have picked up on something I've missed. Falric is the captain in warcraft III, except for in the mission Dissension (whose events we see in Wrath) where the captain there is Luc Valonforth. But The Shores of Northrend, the captain there who ask Arthas whether he is cold, in Rise of the lich King is described as a captain of a ship (page 175), as opposed to a captain in the lordaeron army. Meaning he is not Falric, and maybe not Valonforth. Do you see anything wrong with this thinking or think theres any reasonable doubt as to the captain in Shores of Northrend being a seperate individual? Or do you think it's Valonforth? This captain I for a while was under the impression was Luc Valonforth. In fact the book just describes him as a captain, a very ambiguious description that makes it fully possible he is the same. My main hangup is the way Luc Valonforth is dressed in Wrath. He looks more like a army captain than a naval one. But that's easily dismissable. So what do you think?Warthok Talk Contribs 20:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, Valonforth is described as being one of the ship's captains. I believe it is possible that the character you are speaking of is probably Valonforth. I agree that Valonforth's attire is easily dismissable; he wears identical clothes to Stormwind Captain, and was probably just copy and pasted as an NPC. --Timolas (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Is he specificly described a a ships captain? The captain on page 175 is unnamed and later in the chapter Valonforth is simply called a captain. I have a strong feeling they are one and the same, but i can't go off a strong feeling. I'm trying to decide whether i need to change Luc Valonforth's artcile to reflect the type of captain he is, or whether it's fine and i just need to make a new page for Captain (The Shores of Northrend).Warthok Talk Contribs 21:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think the captain on the shores needs a new article, as I do think it is Valonforth. I guess the misunderstanding arises because I have the galley. In the galley, Valonforth is not yet named. That's where I had Medieval contact the editors to make the change. In the galley, Valonforth is just 'one of the ship's captains'. So I assume that the edit later explained who the captain on the Shores of Northrend was, if you know what I mean. --Timolas (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)