User talk:Ashbear160

Welcome to Wowpedia!

Hello, Ashbear160, 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! -- 22:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Preview
I notice you have a number of small edits. If you're editing a lot of things on one page and want to see how it looks, you may wish to use the "Show preview" button before saving the page to see that. Thanks! -- 14:02, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Removing icons
I shouldn't have to. I did for the giants, but if you do everything in one edit, I'm just going to hit revert (if it involved added many icons). 21:24, April 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sighing wrecking what i wasted a few hours is painstakingly since i believe it helps significantly to everybody looking at it, and i don't see clutter anywhere in fact it removes the sense of clutter because it divides races more cleanly but i'll see what i can do--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:27, April 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Personnal advice: for such changes, work it aside on your name space, then show and talk it in the template talk page.
 * 21:31, April 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * I still plan to do a example for the template:races so i can prove it doesn't look cluttered and actually looks less cluttered because it removes focus on words dividing it with images--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:34, April 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have any complaints then for the creature template icons then A'NOOB?--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:35, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

SoL
Likely due to their exclusive images from Blizzard HQ. 20:19, April 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * I also assumed that, managed to find a email of a admin we'll see what they say--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:21, April 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well that was fast the admin is changing the host :P--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:22, April 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah. 20:30, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Brasscannon icon
What do you think or  for the alliance gunship cannon icon? 19:21, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Put the two they are already uploaded, put one has alternate ,i think since we already have alternate for ogres and blood elfs--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:58, June 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I'd rather there not be an alternative image to this, when only 2 cannons actively use the model. But if you have a preference I'd love to know it, cause one of them will be deleted. 00:17, June 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * The first looks cooler but the second reveals more but it misses a the front part, so it's kinda of a moot point, but i guess the first since it looks cooler and i'am able to associate it with a cannon faster

Your Cataclysm page creations
Some of the new articles that you made for creatures from Cataclysm based on this Wowhead blog post have some problems about them. Storm dragons are not mentioned on page 141 of Shadows & Light. Pygmies are not mentioned on the Wowhead blog. Jungle plants are not mentioned on the Wowhead blog. Barramunda, though concept art of them exists, are not mentioned on the Wowhead blog. Finally, Monkeys are not mentioned on the Wowhead blog. Am I missing a major section of the blog post, or is this an ill disguised attempt at using alpha information to complete your race listing templates?-- 22:30, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Ergh no the shadow light was a accident while copying something, i thought i removed it, pygmies where shown in the cataclysm presentation at blizcon with the model of sand gnomes, monkeys, jungle plants, ettins are too mentioned in earlier previews, and barramunda is concept art but many things that are a concept art are also there, you're not missing any anything, what you're doing is dismissing earlier previews, and now i'm not doing any of that race listing template thing i was trying to fill the red links on the cataclysm page, because red links in articles look bad, especially main articles.--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:06, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

If the pages are based on earlier legitimate previews, why not use those previews as citation in the stead of Wowhead?-- 00:20, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

I just copy pasted most of it so i didn't discern differences sloppy job of me but i disliked the red links--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:02, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Please do not create sloppy pages just to get rid of a red link. Also, please find the sources you mentioned for the pages you created, and add them to the pages.-- 01:21, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Titanic watchers and such
Auraya exists within Ulduar, and is therefore part of an "Ulduar group," but I am trying to classify the group of six "watchers/keepers" around Ulduar that each have their own temple separately from the others. Auraya seems weaker and less important. I am not sure what her not having her own icon on WoWWiki has to do with anything. As for organization, I want to avoid assumptions, but I also want to classify the "titanic watchers" based on their differences. "Watcher" and "keeper" are used as the label for several titanic things, and I am going to dig through some sources for some context. Some of the things listed on the page just might share models, but may have never been called a "watcher" or "keeper". What purpose does organizing them by location serve?-- 21:00, September 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it would be better because then we don't so many without any type of description and some with a description that might apply to others and classifying by location seems to be the most correct at least until we get more on uldum dungeon, and I've checked each entry in there they are either responsible for something I'm pretty sure Ironaya and archaedas are from uldaman and are clearly titan constructs watching something, Myzrael was a corrupted by the old gods, Cretus job seemed to check on the watchers so technically he was watching the watchers, Nablya is a new titan, so she might no be considered a titanic watcher, maiden of grief and Jotun are unknown, but the location might hint that they are watching something, there also Algalon which is a titan construct trough a elemental one and has the job of observing practicably the same as watching, and Auraya is the Ulduar archivist, yes she looks less important but her "temple" was probably the archives inside Ulduar--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:37, September 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well then I will just have to try and add descriptions (with citation). Just because they watch something does not necessarily mean that they are "watchers," but it might... I am not sure. They have to be called watchers (or keepers, which seems to mean the same thing, or at least greatly overlap). The Uldum ones are called "constructs," so they are not likely titans, which the Ulduar ones still may be. Saying that Auraya's "temple" was probably the archives inside Ulduar is, in my opinion, much more unlikely then saying that the other six watchers are different than her. Why do you think this?-- 23:01, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they should be subcategorized at all... no other creature page does it... if anything they could have a "found in <location" statement after their name. 23:03, September 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Are they a single type of creature, or different groups of things given a title?-- 23:11, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't even know anymore... they were said to be titans, but then changed because Metzan said we have yet to meet a titan? Personally, I think he meant one of the top titans, when he made that comment. 23:45, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of them are minor titans others are just titan constructs responsible for overseeing parts of azeroth, some are for guarding stuff, this is in the main description of the article--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:47, September 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * You are citing the article, with the article? I feel it is more important to properly define "watcher" and "keeper" than to heed the attempted definition as the criteria for the page.-- 17:49, September 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * To answer the Auraya question because she was the archivist, it would be probable that she should be in the "The Archivium", however she is crazy and have wondered off--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:51, September 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * That does not prove anything either way.-- 17:49, September 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * I also have a picture of the new quest npcs in uldaman calling ironaya or archaedas a titanic watcher,i'll check and post it later--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:57, September 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the phrase "titanic watcher" was created by WoWWiki to differentiate between Maiev's Watchers, the bronze dragonflight's Watchers. It could be moved to "Watcher (titanic/titan)" if need be...-- 17:49, September 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes but the new Image shows a quest npc in Uldaman using Titanic watcher to reference one or two, the guy that posted the image has a annoying bandwith maximum reached and doesn't let you check older images, but i'll get it--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:26, September 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * So it might have been an official term before after all. Anyway, all that means is that Archaedas and/or Ironaya can stay on the page.-- 23:36, September 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Once i have the image i'll post it here--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:20, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Have the picture:

http://i987.photobucket.com/albums/ae359/bumblebee515/Uldaman/WoWScrnShot_092310_224555.jpg

It's photobucket so i don't know how to make it bigger, there's also another quest that treats archaedas and Ironaya (calling them powerfull constructs left by the creator) as the same so i guess both can be counted as titanic watcher--Ashbear160 (talk) 15:48, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * oh this post automaticly the pictures, know a new something everyday

http://i987.photobucket.com/albums/ae359/bumblebee515/Uldaman/WoWScrnShot_092310_224614.jpg I'l have to ask if the powercores come from ironaya and archaedas trough--Ashbear160 (talk) 15:54, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is desired
Hey, just wanted to solicit your opinion on whether WoWWiki should leave Wikia. Thanks. -- 22:38, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to people that know more about the inner workings of wikipedia than me. Thanks--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:47, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, just realize the web address may be changing - or rather people may be going to another site rather than keep this one up to date. Just wanted to give you a heads-up. -- 22:48, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * But what's the problem with wikia?--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:50, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * They're forcing changes on us that are unreasonable, you can see a list of them on the forum page above. Mainly, they're going to be adding more ads and reducing the content page further, in addition to a bunch of other things. You'll be able to turn on the new look for yourself tomorrow (and it becomes mandatory on Wikia in a month), if you need help figuring how to do it so you can see for yourself let me know then. -- 22:54, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw some pictures I agree that some changes are unreasonable, but i'm not a hypocrite as my support for unification of things is very strong, so i do not think dividing would be good, also in my opinion of unification is that you can change some things and influence on the inside rather than dividing itself out, but it's not like my opinion will change much anyway--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:59, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, definitely, not splitting would be best to retain as many people as possible (and we're trying to make sure as many people are aware as we can), but we've been trying to work with Wikia on this and other things before and it's not working out for us. They've budged maybe half an inch when they needed to have budged a mile, while we've given up a lot, of control and other things. -- 23:18, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you complain that the right bar makes me read article painful? it's made in a way it gives me headaches to read--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:32, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I think it's already been reported though - and you can always switch to another skin for now. -- 20:35, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah i know i just checked the skin and i my head gave a headache turned it off right after--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:49, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Hostility
You have been involved in edit wars on several pages of various kinds now, asserting your views as correct in a hostile manner. If this keeps up, you may be given a temporary ban to cool off. You are welcome to keep contributing, but do so in a better manner.-- 01:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not my fault he can't take a joke.--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not only talking about the bias pages, nor am I sure that was the main problem on them.-- 01:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What else are you talking about them? the only thing i changed was bias pages and tried added jokes at the end which were constantly removed by him, if these weren't a silly page he would have reason, but since it's only a silly page he's the one that's wrong--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nearly every page you edit ends up as an edit war to some extent, with dominance in the stead of consensus being the goal.-- 02:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What other pages?--Ashbear160 (talk) 12:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Template:Species comes to mind. As does pages related to it.-- 18:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * PCJ is the one that said that he didn't want us to pull that crap in that template and to keep it simple--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just tone it down.-- 19:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine but can you at least add a joke to the end of both bias articles, it's kinda boring this way--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't care if it's boring, and I am not going to be drawn into any fights.-- 20:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Advice
For the safety of all, please remember the following advice:
 * Do not blindly reverse the edits that were undone. Instead, go to the talk page and discuss the changes with calm and choosen words.

This may seem "easy to say", but know that I was once like you, and if need be you will learn this rule with a ban juste like I did ;)

Keep up the good work Ashbear.

23:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously this is not funny he's ruining everything, for basicly no reason--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that you enjoy classifying and organizing "races" very much. However, you are getting into several edit wars over details that are largely unnecessary, and then acting erratically. If you want to do some kind of massive overhaul of several things/templates, please discuss your overall plan beforehand in an organized fashion. Like the forums (and work collaboratively, with citation!). Continuing anger and edit wars, especially over trivial minutia, will result in a ban fairly soon if you keep it up.-- 00:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I already did it's in the main sapient races template dicussion and this has been accepted a long time ago, it's not my fault PCJ just named the templates wrong, It's normal that i become a little irrational i spent a long time on those templates and fitting them to every one complaints, so that one admin arrives and ruins it because the Article Names are not correct, I spent over a month listening to every complaint that everyone had--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, on Template talk:Species, a fairly large amount of adjustments are noted. However, there are obviously still some disagreements about your overall vision.-- 00:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried my best but you can't please everyone all of the time, and that kinda died after a while so i didn't have chances to explore these problems further, i'm pretty sure i dealt with all that problems till that point, i made a post in the forum anyway like you asked
 * Check the archives of that discussion Basicly the Template evolved from this

Into What you see the today(i can't show how it was before the division because the Template:race Dev article was deleted)--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * SWM can i change the name of the article to fit the purpose of the article?


 * This confuses me a bit. You largely decided the content of the ever-changing templates, and now you say that the names that Pcj chose do not match your vision. Giving you permission to move the templates might lead to more chaos.-- 21:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Is not the names that are the problem but the fact that Gourra takes the article names literally and deletes everything that doesn't correspond to it, for example The icon list a project page had Gourra delete all the mechanical icons because it was called "race list" and not "creature list", i had to undo the delete and ask him to change the name accordingly, also it wasn't i that decided this, i asked many people their opinions and tried to optimise it to best of everyone opinions, took me over a month, now he's changing it because the original names of the templates are not exactly defined.
 * Also there is already a demon template(with non-sapient demons), i need to change it to sapient demon template so at least it's not a duplication of articles that is justified.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it says something about an article if the content can be so changed that the name no longer matches, or if the name itself dictates the content. Consensus is the key. g0urra is just trying to keep things sane. Hmm... Okay, fine. Where did Pcj forbid you from doing whatever? If he did, keep not doing whatever. I will assume he had a reason, as I was not a participant in the original discussion. If he did not expressly forbid you from doing something, then I will give you my permission. If you do cause chaos, then you will be banned for a while (hopefully you will understand what the problem that caused you to be banned was, if it comes to that), and you will learn a valuable lesson about not causing wiki-strife. I am actually in the process of writing a detailed explanation of why you might aggravate people, for your benefit.-- 21:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He didn't forbid me, he more kinda didn't let me start the templates because some of these he didn't considered needed, i told him that i couldn't use the templates as a alternative because it had thing like warlocks and non-sentient species, he accepted my argument, and made the templates, except dragonkin which really isn't needed because that template works just fine due to just having one Non-sapient species, i conceded on that, and i still agree with him dragonkin sapient template is still not needed, i'm also not causing chaos i'm just grabbing the name of the articles and substitute it with the name of the templates which are what is the original intent of the article.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Specificly these two, tell me if you have any problem with these two changes:
 * -Template:Demons to Template:Sapient Demons
 * -Template:Eternal to Template:Sapient Nature, divine spirits and Eternals or Template:Sapient Other, which of these 2 do you think it's best for a template for those things that don't fit in the other templates?
 * I'm sorry if i sound aggravating but when i see someone ruining a template i took over a month to design, because the name of the article was done in a spurt of the moment and does not fit the purpose of the thread, it's normal to get a little angry, particularly since i had to heard so many opinions and a lot of brain bending to fit everything perfectly.
 * Correction i started on September 5 of 2009 and it was divided and ended around December, apparently took over a month is understating...--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Template:Sapient Nature, divine spirits and Eternals" or "Template:Sapient Other"? Those are very odd names. Tell me, in you own clear words, what this template are actually (supposed to be) for? What goes on it? Besides sapience. Also, while you have obviously put a lot of work into these templates, and while the original version was not perfect, your versions are not perfect either.-- 22:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The Last template, or all of the templates?, and i never believe in the perfection, only in constant improvement, but catering with everyone criticisms has left me with a almost complete templates, and i do not see much room for improvement.--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The last template that you mentioned. As in, the one(?) that I mentioned. Let us focus on that.-- 22:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well essentially the original premise is that it's supposed to be about everything else that isn't the other templates, and due to the way the other templates are made, it only leaves Gods, Natures spirits(elementals and plant things) and divine spirits(Angels, guardians, naaru and spirit healers)--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not know what a good name would be. Those things seem unrelated (they are not all what would be considered "Eternals" as far as I know), so grouping them is pointless. What I think happened was that you felt the need to list everything, and it got to big, so what would just be smaller sections on a massive template became small sections on a strange template. Maybe you should wait for more feedback about your final product as a whole.-- 22:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that i have too much feedback, le sigh, anyway i now have 2 problems as someone criticised the demon template
 * -Instead of Sapient demons, i need to put that encompasses every fel corrupted race and demons, i though of Sapient Fel Species, or Sapient Fel-Touched Races i prefer the first but i'm going to wait his answer first, but please give me your opinion, on what the best name.
 * -The template Eternal stemmed from the problem that blizzard official method of classification is flawed in terms of lore where gameplay was more important, this one was evolved from the Uncategorized method of Classification, and now that you mention it, i could remove all the Eternal marks and link them to the religion template which has a more comprehensive list(which i also updated) and Just make it a Sapient Spirits Template
 * Until i reach a conclusion with these two last templates i'm not changing their names--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Managed to reduced the ancient stuff and put all sub-races

Ancient (Lore· Arcane· War· Wind· Wonder· Protector· Corrupted· Treant· Tree of Life)
 * What do you think, i need to list them because it's the purpose of the template--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You have more than two problems. I, personally, do not like either of those names for the demon template. If I HAD to pick something, perhaps something like "Demon(ic) and Fel"? Blaming Blizzard does not solve anything. Those are not all the (tree) ancient sub-"races" and, on that topic, I dislike the fact that you are mentioning/discussing the same problem on more than one talk page. Why do you need to list them?-- 01:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 1-It needs to specify that they are sapient at least so Gourra doesn't have a problem, because there's already a template for all demon races including non-sapient and constructs, Do you think "Sapient Demonic and Fel Species" would work? if you think it's too large we could remove the Species, but even if the name was changed it would already redirect if you put so it's not much of a hassle either
 * 2-can you list any that are missing? i mean besides one that aren't variations of the same model with different names
 * 3-Well that's because i want a answer from admin, and sincerely i'm not entirely trusting of gourra right now, he already had 3 problems with me on article names vs article purpose.
 * 4-I need to list them because it was the purpose of the sub-template, to list subraces that couldn't be seen on the main template
 * 5-Also what do you think of my suggestion to remove eternals from it and link them to the religion template instead and changing the template to sapient spirits or something similiar--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 1 - No it does not. Take that up with g0urra. Seriously. Talk to him if you are shaping things around how much you dislike him. Maybe use "races" as that implies sapience to me.
 * 2 - If you are going by model, I don't care.
 * 3 - I am an admin. And there are other users on Wowpedia who count besides administrators... namely all of them. Seriously. Talk to g0urra if you have such a problem.
 * 4 - If you say so.
 * 5 - I think then you would add the religion template into this sort-of mess. Also, "Eternal" is not a race (I'm not sure if you think that), it is a 'template' (status-type-thing) that makes a creature in the Warcraft RPG a badass demigod (because the word 'demigod' did not feel right).
 * Yeah. Do you at least understand why people like g0urra disagree with you?-- 02:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1 - "Demonic and Fel Races", and not i'm not doing that, i'm trying to keep all the templates consistent with each other
 * 2 - It's not by model, it's by sub-race, it's just that the Ancient sub-races are already defined in Warcraft 3, the only addition after that was ancient of arcane, the only reason corrupted ancient is considered different it's because fel tends to change things a lot but i wouldn't mind removing it.
 * 3 - Yes I already posted in the forums like you asked and i'm talking with Erik in the demon template discussion.
 * 4 - I Don't think a Eternal is a race i think it's more of a title
 * 5 - I also don't plan to add the template religion to this mess, just separate the deities from sapient races(gods are already supposed to ascend the mind something akin of omniscient race (No i'm not going to do a template about that)would probably more correct)
 * 6 - Depends on the situation, 3 problems i seem to have:
 * -Name of Demon Template, It's due to the fact that there are fel corrupted races and the line between Demon and a fel corrupted Race Blurs a lot.
 * -Name of Eternal Template, Because it was supposed to be designed as the other template it got messy.
 * -Ancient, Don't get it maybe something to do with bloating the template but i already reduced those to about half the size.
 * If you mean the other reason is maybe because i'm assertive, and got a little aggressive due to the destruction of my(and others) hard work over technicalities, i think it's perfectly natural to be angry in that situation, i'll try to talk to Gourra tomorrow--Ashbear160 (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think "Template:Demonic and Fel races" is the perfect solution, What do you think?--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, as far as the name goes, but you seem to be getting more feedback. Heed that first.-- 18:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for his answer, he doesn't seem to think the template in itself is necessary, however i already dealth with that argument from Pcj and he conceded to the demon template but not the dragonkin template and i agree with pcj in this case--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He told me to go create another template... What do i do now?--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * After this i would like to deal with a problem in the Alliance and Horde Infoboxes, with you if possible--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the problem that you see with those templates?-- 19:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the leader title thing is it truly necessary?, it makes the infobox look bloated when you can click the link and see the title of character you just clicked, my point is that essentially sorta useless and makes the infobox huge.--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I ask you this because there have been several edit wars due to these things(i was not involved) a admin choice/opinion would be clarifying, also what do i do about the demon template.--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to tell you. If you do not like the titles in the Horde/Alliance navboxes, then take the titles out or something. Please read Wowpedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.-- 20:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually like them, it's that it occupies a huge amount of space for no reason.--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you like them, then leave them. There are no objective standards in Wowpedia policies of guidelines for "bloating" that I know of.-- 20:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PCJ disagrees then since that was the reason he divided the sapient species template, unless there are wowpedia policies for "bloating" in templates, i don't know much of wowpedia policies, anyway here is what i suggested


 * User:Ashbear160/Template:Demonic and Fel races
 * User:Ashbear160/Template:Sapient Spirits
 * What do you think?--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also how do you make the article link to parts of the article instead of the beginning of the article?--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll do what you suggest, i'll remove the titles and if someone reverts i'll try to reason with them in the talk page, but could you do me a favour and archive the alliance and horde page, i thinks it's big enough to be archived.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Becoming way to big, and complaining that something is slightly too big even though you actually like it are two different things. You really should read over Wowpedia:Policies and Wowpedia:Guidelines (but remember to keep in mind their intent). To link to a part of an article, use a link like " Main page ". To help yourself, look at the URL of a page after you click something in the table of contents. What do you mean 'archive'?-- 21:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm ok, and i mean by archives this Template talk:Sapient Species/Archive2 is what they do when a talk page becomes to big.
 * Can you give em a opinion on the templates that i suggested? any particular flaws?--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What do you want me to archive? And let me see... besides your ability to inexplicably make things a hassle... in my, and only my, opinion:
 * Flaws with your demon template: "Doomlord" is not a "sapient species" or a "race" as far as I know, it is a doomguard with extra bits. Why capitalize some things and not others? You did not link 'dire fel orc' even though you mentioned it. I have no idea where "Fiends" fit. "Man'ari eredar" is redundant, as they are "Eredar" who are called "man'ari" by the draenei.
 * Flaws with your 'spirits' template: The connection between the three groups still seems rather weak. If "Stone Lords" is a subtype, then mountain giants and colossi probably are too.
 * Still, stop being so finicky.-- 21:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So sorry
 * Doom lord was added by another(and my position is neutral, so meh) and is in both templates, but there's the difference that doomguards are small and doomlords are gigantic wouldn't mind either way, i did not link Dire Fel orc because i can't find the link, probably i should link to the Dire Orc page and let it be, i have no idea and the fact that they might be related to Ered'ruin is speculation so they get stuffed in "other", the Man'ari have evolved more from the original Eredar than the draenei so it's justified to be called from different names, you can read why they are called man'ari in the second paragraph of the Eredar page.
 * The different is that one is a powerful earth elemental, the other a giant created by the titan, however i won't argue with you over technicalities since i also added doubts when i added those, if you want i will remove Stone lords, they are not that important anyway, between the connections 3 is that elemental are nature spirits, plants are also largely nature spirits, and the other as spirits and divine spirits, it's kinda hard to link them yes, i could follow other naming suggestions, "Sapient Other" but like you mentioned feel awkwards, and i don't have many ideas, it's just that making templates with 3 entries would feel "meh"
 * Sorry again for being(checks free dictionary) fussy, i just don't want the templates to go to waste--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I did better User:Ashbear160/Template:Sapient Magic, fused Demons with the other template and i was left with Sapient magical races Template--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

A short ban
Due to your continued edit wars and disruption, a few admins, myself included, feel it is necessary to give you some time to slow down, citing the disruptive editing policy. The conversation above shows that you recognize the issues against you, but do not feel that you are at fault. You have been notified enough. I tried to explain the complaints against you. Also, it would be wise to not to ask people to edit pages in your stead for the time being. Circumventing your ban is bad.-- 23:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Was the "last straw" putting a delete tag on the fel corruption page? because that was a mistake i wanted to put a merge tag with demon page and i said why in the... huh history/summary--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it was not (by my reasoning). On that page, you replaced four maintenance templates with one template that (as far as procedure goes) will not do anything by itself, and a comment, but it was not the/a "last straw". The ban was to demonstrate the seriousness of the complaints against you, which that mistake was not one of the major ones.-- 00:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that i was overprotecting those templates? i had to cater with old criticism that Gourra didn't know of--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the "overprotecting" of those templates is a large part of it. It was less "defending" and more "claiming" and "dominating." Not very wiki-like. You have had several long discussions, but you do not seem to cater to any criticism, just suggestions which appeal to you and your ever-changing project, or which you can use as an excuse. Maybe you are stressed about the amount of time you have put into this, but still: talk about things before you act. Also, if you have a problem with a user (admins count as users), work it out with them, or tell another admin (in a way that will not cause infighting) why that user is wrong. I, personally, do not care very much about the minutia of the templates' layouts, so I can not arbitrate very well.-- 01:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Which criticism that i didn't cater? i think i answered the "why not"of every criticism on the talk pages--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is to say, you dismissed such criticisms with a reason. Just stop the edit wars, and stop blaming Gourra for them. It is your fault too.-- 01:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I stopped the edit wars the shortly after A'noob warned me--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Links in section headings
As a guideline, is it bad to put links in section headings per Wowpedia:MOS, as you did here.-- 22:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't exactly corrected it when it was done in the Kraken article...--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you help me with something, how do i reference something to the Unbroken Short Story?--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind i Found it --Ashbear160 (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I like to help, and I try to help. Also, I think I will fix the Kraken page now. Thank you for pointing it out.-- 03:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Tagging articles for deletion
When you see an article that should be deleted right away, such as spam or vandalism, use Speedydelete instead of Delete. -- 14:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * oh ok thanks--Ashbear160 (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

RE: Organization
I see no problem, but you should probably get the opinions of the editors that heavily edit that article, such as Lon-ami and A'noob. 02:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do tomorrow

Undead templates
Try and decide on which template you're going to use: Scourge or Creaturefooter/Undead. As it is right now, they seem pretty much the same. -- 18:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm changing the scourge template so it's different from the creature template undead--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The scourge template is finished i think and different enough from the undead creature template, what do you think?--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ashbear...
Ashbear, I do not hate you, I only find it hard to see my disagreement with most everything you do as mere coincidence or as me being wrong that much. I expect someone who edits as much as you do to show a certain level of improvement in editing and wiki skills. However, you have consistently shown a few things: a refusal to check your spelling and grammar, a refusal to read our policies and guidelines, a refusal to actually submit to criticism (you just tweak things within your own parameters, or explain why you were right), and a refusal to plan ahead at all. Also, I have a few minor pet peeves about you, but I will leave those alone for now. The wiki is not yours. I see the same page-claiming and rigid opinions as I have in the past. You have been warned by multiple users, and I have personally seen no improvement. I refuse to accept that it is just me, as other users have tried to correct you. However, I can not just ban people. To ban someone, they need to actively break policy. Your edits are a constant stream of borderline cases. We have policies, I am not infallible, and it would scare people away to ban such cases on a whim, so you remain. However, I do not want to keep following your edits and reorganizations around. Though in doing so, I find that not everything you do is bad. Sometimes you are right. You only fall short in an overall sense. I want to help you, but any advice would likely be redundant and/or ignored. I know that you know. You know what you do, you just do not seem to care or see it as wrong. I do not want you to feel like you are being attacked, especially if you have been in the past, I just want you to shape up now.-- 04:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * i guess it's who i am, i can try to remedy myself, but changing the way you work it's pretty hard... anyway can you give a few examples?--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

old god faction
Seems Gabrirt took your plan into motion and ran with it. Old Gods' forces. 21:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol ok he only thing i can do ow is add the part that i have finished--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Horde article
I am informing all recent contributors of the Horde article that it has been locked for cleanup. We welcome any and all discussion on the Horde talk page once cleanup has begun. This is to insure everyone who has been editing the article will be happy with it, or at least meet a compromise on certain subjects, so the edit warring can be put to an end. Thank you, 19:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. ... I know you already know about it.. just don't want you to feel left out of my mass spamming. =P 19:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

On A-Z sorted list
Since it is the only common basis between all our occidental languages, please learn or refer to this when you insert a name in a sorted list.

A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - I - J - K - L - M - N - O - P - Q - R - S - T - U - V - W - X - Y - Z

And stick to it.

Please.

17:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Citation help
Please see Wowpedia:Citation to learn how to make the same reference appears as only one reference on the reference list.-- 21:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You really only need to list the source once, and the rest of the time you just use the first tag with the title, followed by a slash before the closing bracket. The rest is unnecessary.-- 02:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I do that so i don't confuse myself when fusing them...
 * Anyway is there anyway to group references of the same group with different pages?--Ashbear160 (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you mean to group them across different pages, or what?-- 02:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, i don't think that what i meant, i meant more to appear something similar to this in the reference list:


 * Dark factions
 * pg. 127
 * pg. 66-67
 * pg. 44


 * i vaguely remember this being done on a wiki before..--Ashbear160 (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You can with some work, I think, but nothing like that has been done on any other page. If you want a change in general reference format, bring it up on a forum page.-- 02:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure i saw it here already but i could be wrong--Ashbear160 (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Grell-like
Please stop changing creatures from "Grell" to "Grell-like." Unless you can cite it, this is not a race. Especially since you've simply redirected "Grell-like" to "Grell." -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't say they are grell too.--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)