User talk:Revrant

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Gourra (Talk) 19:43, 19 August 2009

Horde leadership
Yes, while the achievement states all four are leaders within the Horde, they are not MAIN leaders, they are SECONDARY leaders. For more information or to add to the discussion see Talk:Horde. Thank you, 18:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's silly, obviously the Tauren and soon to be Goblins, as well as the Trolls, would not answer to the Forsaken, they would answer to Thrall or their respective leaders more so. Also, Jaina had no true hold on Alliance leadership until very recently with the rebirth of Dalaran, yet she has been the main leadership solely because she's the only one on mainland Kalimdor.
 * No I have to disagree, Cairne especially, he is a founding member of the Horde and part of why the Horde exists, and is the largest giver to it in Kalimdor barring the Orcs themselves. Lor'themar I think is subjective, according to the story he is now the official leader of the Blood Elves, and they are a full member of the Horde. However, he is not involved in politics as the other three are, indeed all three seem to be neck deep in policy decisions and running the Horde. I think it's obvious founding members, barring those without a home or resources to donate, are part of the main leadership regardless of how much clearer the hierarchy is. Part of the reason is, given ideal circumstances such as in the past, the Alliance would consider defying their leader treason, but that is not true of the current Horde.
 * Thrall is much more welcoming of opposing views and discussion, he's been betrayed quite a few times and responded with exile where Varian would have them executed. He's also had members of the Horde disobey him and not become wrapped up in protocol, but instead discovering the reasons before acting. Revrant (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well like I said, bring it to Talk:Horde. 19:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

An explanation as to why the title is now relevant
You asked. There has been much debate on whether certain "Darkfallen" are "San'layn" or not. Prince Taldaram does no have the title under his name, so people may want to know why he is listed there. I was adding a source, just not a very direct one.-- 23:01, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * That was a rather roundabout way of doing it, the source was already part of the edit, if you would like I could add it as a cite. Revrant (talk) 23:02, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the lack of hostility. You do not have to. Looking a few lines up, I can see the redundancy.-- 23:06, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * Hostility? Revrant (talk) 23:07, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, your lack of it. This sort of thing is often taken badly. Nevermind...-- 23:14, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * I should hope you aren't referencing anything you weren't involved in as the basis of judging another editor. Revrant (talk) 23:17, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not judging you based on any of your past actions. Rather, I was relieved that you took my explanation better than most would. I am sorry if I appeared unprofessional.-- 23:23, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * I should hope not, I have experienced that before over minor quibbles on other sites, I apologize for assuming the worst. I understand why some were against the change and why you would want the addendum, before now it was assumed that Darkfallen needed the title to be San'layn. Revrant (talk) 23:27, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I proceeded to revert without watching this discussion. I'll make it as Revrant said of the citation. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 01:04, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * That would have been an unfortunate course of action given the wiki frowns upon poorly thought out half-mentions, a citation with reference is indeed the most appropriate course. Revrant (talk) 01:43, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

Rule on novel information
I've seen all the same information you have, and I know it's true. Just one problem - the rule regarding information out of novels (yes, we're carrying the rules over from WoWWiki) is that we wait two weeks before we post it. Lets it circulate among the masses first. The Shattering's only been out for one week. Don't understand this rule either, but that's what it is. -- Joshmaul, Loremaster of Chaos (Leave a Message) 04:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, where exactly is this rule? So I can make efforts to change it, I can't seem to find it. Revrant (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Found it, and a vote is going on to get rid of it, so I'll be voting to recall this ridiculous rule. Revrant (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly like it either - point me to the poll? --[[Image:IconSmall_Deathwing.gif]] Joshmaul, Loremaster of Chaos (Leave a Message) 05:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.wowpedia.org/Wowpedia_talk:Lore_policy#Proposal_recall_vote:_spoiler_policy Revrant (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)