User talk:WoWlord

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Fandyllic (Talk) 09:11, 28 April 2009

Aspects
WoWlord you should know, the aspects, other than Alexstrasza and Ysera are not actualy siblings. Please refrain from changing the articles again without reference to an explicit official statement.

Well of Eternity, on page 244 Ysera states while Neltharion and Malygos behave like brothers, which means they are in fact not.

14:55, September 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Errh yes they are. Old lore like that book, which you seems to take your info from have changed. The Lore from 2009+ Blizzard themselves in-game and all the poeple i have asked say that all five aspects are indeed siblings. So you should know. The aspects are siblings. Don't just change things like that before you know if it's right and wrong. I would apriceate you either change it back or don't mess with it when i,m trying to update the info a little so it matches the new updated lore instead of that old one you seem to cling to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by.


 * No they are not! You are probably refering to Galakrond, but he is not their father, but their progenitor, as of whole dragon race... You should better check your informations.... Neutralion (talk) 16:49, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

If you can tell me an official Blizzard thing where it says that, such as a forum post or a novel or something, then you're right. But under the curent lore, as far as i know of, they are not siblings (except Alexstrasza and Ysera). And don't say something like "my friends told me that...", that doesn't count (unless said friend is, say, Chris Metzen) Andreioplst (talk) 17:07, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * WoWlord three things


 * 1) The older information is not outdated. See our previous discussion. Yes I know it's you.


 * 2) Your additions are based on an assumption they are siblings, not a hard concrete explicit statement, while there are those to the contrary.


 * 3) Even if the older information was outdated (It's not) we wouldnt simply throw it out. Thats not how the wiki works, never has never will. If thats a problem the only thing i can suggest is for you to start your own wiki. 17:23, September 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok listen. I just saw it was here some time ago and now it's gone and i thought no big deal. But then i went around asking other people and they said they are indeed siblings. And honestly i believe more in around 20 or so ppl who say they are then 2-3 ppl who say they aren't. Much of what is written in the old book have been changed. At fist the Titans only came once and defeated the Old Gods and shaped the world, charged the Dragons and left. Then later it was changed to. They came once more and first there defeated the Old Gods. Even Blizzard themself have said it by adding that part where Alexstrasza tell us that all five aspects were created from Galakrond. Making them all siblings. Originally the dragons just existed and the five dragons was chosen. Later on that was changed to now they were created by the Titans from one dragon. That makes them indeed siblings. Don't use that book as an excuse just because you don't wanna admit you are wrong. Show me a proof (besides that book) that says they are not siblings and i'll believe you. Untill then don't mess it up when someone is trying to updating a little, out-of-date Lore. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by.
 * Theres countless problems with what you just said but here are the main ones.
 * It doesnt matter how many people tell you what they think and who you choose to believe. Completely 100% meaningless. All that matters is what blizzard says.
 * Being made from the same being does not automaticly make them "siblings". You only consider them such. I might consider them quintuplets, or cousins, or created-from-the-same-being-thingies.
 * The "old outdated lore" was revisited just a few months ago in the latest issue of the WoW Magazine.
 * You asked for proof "besides that book". You are ignoring an explicit statement that is contradictory to your assumptions.
 * As you have failed to prove they are siblings we have no responsibility to prove whatsoever they are not. The burden of proof lies with you. Clear concise explicit statement please.
 * Unless you have something new to add I see no reason to further entertain this notion or respond again. But feel free to continue your rant. 20:46, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

By this logic if 20 people told you it's safe to jump off a bridge while another 4 said it's suicide, would this mean you'd jump cause more people told you incorrect information? 20:51, September 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * let him jump, it'll give me some work. xD
 * 07:39, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Ok forget it. All i was trying to do was updating a little as i have been told by countless players that the Aspects are siblings. And the clues that Blizzard have given us In-game also point in that direction. I was merely trying to help and what do i get? a bunch of childish brats who don't wanna admit they are wrong, who keep on clinging to Lore that have been changed and don't wanna listen to reason. So fine go on, give ppl wrong and outdated Info. Hope you guys mature a little and realise the truth that Lore have changed alot since the first books was written, and so isn't a good info scource anymore. You guys aren't worth my time i,m out of here.
 * Has nothing to do with us, this is simply how a wiki works. We just report what Blizzard has given us. If a source later tells us they are siblings then the changes will be made but being "created from Galakrond" does not automaticlly qualify them as siblings. This is not about new lore replacing old lore. If it was the new lore would be implemented into the artcle (and believe me i would be he first person to jump up and do it) and the "old lore" would be referenced in a note at the bottom of the page. This however is about old lore specificly stating something (not siblings) and new lore coming along that neither adds nor contradicts anything previously stated (no meantion of siblinghood whatsoever). 18:06, September 29, 2010 (UTC)