User talk:Xporc

From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Previous discussions archived:

Move InstanceMapID to MapID

I have also updated any pages that were linking to MapID to WorldMapAreaID instead. Could you please move InstanceMapID to MapID? Ketho (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

On second thought, I changed my mind. I think it's better after all to have a separate page of Instance Map IDs, if someone would only be interested in those. Ketho (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
So I do nothing? :p Xporc (talk) 07:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, never mind me. I always keep changing my mind after like every edit :x Ketho (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

New changes

Hello guys. This is mainly a blog post for those that are interested in my daily life. I'm writing this to say that I'm trying to change the way I work on wowpedia, after several burnouts over the years, as well as new IRL therapy sessions and several new potential life prospects. As such, I am now able to listen to advices from you guys as well as from my family members and friends.

I don't think I can simply "quit" wowpedia, since it's my major source of entertainment while at work (yes, my job is that boring). I tried several times, and as you know each time I fell down the rabbit hole again. As such, since a few days I'm now trying to only validate changes to pages I am actually interested in. That means I'll validate lore, organizations and NPC-related changes, but probably won't bother with quest, UI, gameplay, item and meta-related edits. My usual wowpedia workday was usually between 2 and 4 hours of daily work, I'm trying to reduce the workload to a maximum of 2 hours. With this new method I may miss typos and other minor problems on the pages I don't validate, but eh. The time investment is not worth it and it's time I don't have anymore anyway. Damn shame neither gamepedia nor wikia wanted to hire me, but that's life.

So all in all, you guys keep doing what you do, I just want to you to remember that your changes won't always be checked by someone else. Actually, the bigger you are as a contributor, the higher is the chance that I won't look at your edits. I'm not quitting or anything, I'm just trying to meaningfully reduce my workload. I'll try to use some of that newly-freed time to actually add value to wowpedia by adding new content instead of validating other people's changes, but no promises on that. Maybe I'll just use this time to play video games and get drunk with my mates lol.

Let's keep working together while also ensuring our mutual well-being. Cheers. Xporc (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Kudos for this new point of view. Don't worry for the mistakes, at some point someone will notice and fix them, probably. Is human to make mistakes. Health should always be a priority so cheers on you for trying to do the right thing. Wowpedia can be a great place to enjoy so just keep doing only what you like. And good luck with everything! :D --Ryon21 (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Good to hear it! Hopefully this outlook will be more sustainable :) PeterWind (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! It's way faster to do it this way, now I gotta resist the urges to validate all the edits Xporc (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Bilgewater

I'm wondering if you are planning to go through the Bilgewater goblin pages and fix the incorect Bilgewater Cartel (faction) links u requested to be added since not every Bilgewater goblin is tagged with the in-game reputation like First Mate Billwix or lore characters? --Mordecay (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Nah, feel free to do them Xporc (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Unit name capitalization in WC3 infoboxes

You see, all those titles are fully capitalized for some reason (Crypt Fiend), so your edit goes against the grain. I actually agree with linking to lore articles, so the names should be de-capitalized, but it should be an undertaking based on consensus.--Adûnâi (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Because they are NPCs. Just Warcraft III ones.--SWM2448 00:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what? What part of the fact these infoboxes reflect the lore of the fight did you not understand? Where did you find NPCs in the lore? Even calling WC3 units NPCs is quite nonsensical.--Adûnâi (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Look, you either do [[Skeletal mage]]s, [[Skeletal mage|Skeletal Mages]] or [[Skeletal Mage (Warcraft III)|Skeletal Mages]], but you don't link to an unrelated Duskwood mob. It's not rocket science. Xporc (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Bael'Dun

Your edit claimed the Stonespire tauren attacked the dwarves, necessitating the dwarves retaliating. This is not the case anywhere, Gann says they simply protested, whilst Khazgorm says the tauren were merely annoying in their opposition and note this is after he writes the natives were displaced by the diggers and that the work was disruptive to the local inhabitants. Gann Stonespire (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Then change the text but use actual references. You were using something about an unrelated flying machine to say that Twinbraid had personally ordered to massacre tauren, and that source was simply not saying that. Xporc (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
BTW, I have limited patience for your crusade against Bael Modan and the dwarves there. Please refrain from annoying several users and launching discussions everywhere. Keep your head cool, stick to one discussion place, and try to stick to the facts as they are presented instead of acting like you are in a MMO-champion argument. Xporc (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Its not unrelated, read Khazgorm's journal and Gann's quest where he specifically says "Many innocent tauren lost their lives" in H [23] Gann's Reclamation and his tribe is called a "lost tribe" in H [26] Revenge of Gann. I've been citing everything, please look at my sources. If anything, I feel you and Ryon's edits are downplaying the dwarves actions, even Khazgorm's own journal paints them in a bad light where they directly say stuff like "The work will be noisy and disruptive but our search is of far greater importance than the comfort of the local inhabitants." Gann Stonespire (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, your edits downplay the taurens and treat the dwarves even more devilish. You are also repeating the same sentences all over the pages which is not necessary. There's no need to add "they are a lost tribe" all over. The own tribe page is enough. --Ryon21 (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
You keep saying "According to Gann they are a lost tribe", when everything in the game says he is correct and WoWpedia only does edits like that when the NPCs words are contested or contradicted elsewhere. Saying they "are considered a lost tribe" and giving Gann's quest is accurate to the lore and NPOV, unlike your edit to the Stonespire Tribe page insinuating Gann is lying. And the fact that your claiming here that the tauren are at fault for being attacked by invading dwarves who in their own words didn't care about the natives, shows you going out of your way to view the Dwarves in the right. You even claim on the page history that Gann's words are invalidated by two other surviving tribesmen, when both characters refer to their people dying and that three survivors of a tribe does obviously not make them not lost. Gann Stonespire (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Being noisy is hardly the same as being genocidal. I don't think there's any question that the dwarves killed a certain number of tauren, but there is a problem of extrapolation in some of these recent edits. PeterWind (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't say the dwarves are genocidal, but does say "and are considered a lost tribe" because that is what Gann Stonespire says in H [26] Revenge of Gann, which is given as the source. Gann Stonespire (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Tbh, at this point I don't care about it so if you want to put that go ahead. But don't call me a liar when I did not. I simply put Gann said that because he was the only one who said while other tribe members were alive. And about the dwarven attack, welcome to World of Warcraft, everyone attacks everyone. So yes, if you put the dwarves in an even worse position I will object. The dwarves attacked the tauren and took their home to excavate. They didn't go after the tauren, the dwarves' objective was excavate. So I am against saying the dwarves increased their military just to go after the tauren when they did that to protect the excavation from the tauren who wanted their home back. This is true neutrality. Not because someone does something bad we have to say all the time "yes they are very bad". --Ryon21 (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The Drakkari tribe has been considered lost since Cataclysm, despite a few survivors, so Auld and Alto do not in anyway contradict Gann's words, especially when their own quests support his story, hence "the tribe is considered lost" works perfectly in the article. In  [Khazgorm's Journal], he asks for military support to deal with the bullmen and other natives of the barrens. Entering the land of a foreign nation, displacing the natives, then asking for military support, having said military attack and kill the natives, then setting up a military base for the sake of "politics" all in a time of a tentative peace, is a blatant act of war and is in no way neutral. Try to imagine if US archaeologists did that in Russia during the the Cold war. Your claims of them acting in neutrality make your own lack of neutrality clear. And my edits never said "yes they are very bad" as you are claiming Your edits though, did claim that the Dwarves acted in self defense which is blatantly wrong. Gann Stonespire (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
When I said "true neutrality" I was talking about the edits not the dwarves. But whatever. The difference with the Drakkari is that multiple sources say they do not longer exist. In fact, it wasn't until BfA that we confirmed them as lost even though older sources stated they were. Either way, for today I am done. I have a series to watch :bongocat: --Ryon21 (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Saying they are "considered no more" is not violating NPOV, saying the Dwarves were acting in defense is violating NPOV as the source from the dwarves also points to them calling in the military to attack and displace the natives, as well as plotting strategic positions for future military action. Gann Stonespire (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
What u watching? --Mordecay (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh, a gameplay series of FFX. It's been years since I played that game when I was a kid :bongocat: --Ryon21 (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

what the fuck happened to my talk page Xporc (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

New lineage race diagram

Je suis entrain de refaire les diagrammes d'origines des races car la plupart sont en JPEG et je vais les refaire en PNG, pourrais tu effacer les anciennes version au fur et à mesure que j'upload des nouvelles ? --Klakmuf (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Bien sûr, met juste un tag ou quelque chose pour que je puisse les identifier au fur et à mesure Xporc (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Ça marche par contre cest quoi le tag pour demander un truc qui doit être effacer ?--Klakmuf (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
{{speedydelete}} + mettre une raison Xporc (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Italics

Do you know, or could you ask, if this is ok (see the page itself for the result because revisions don´t show the change)? Page names for games and literature tend to be italicized, but some - like the Dark Riders - who have parenthesis next to the name, don´t have the name italicized, and I don´t know why. Is there a reason those names are not in italics or am I free to use italics on them? --Mordecay (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

They should be italicized. For literature, the template {{Bookbox}} already adds the DISPLAYTITLE and italicizes the name. The problem with Dark Riders (comic) is that the DISPLAYTITLE in the template takes the name from the parameter name or title when the DISPLAYTITLE needs to be the same as the article's name, in this case "Dark Riders (comic)". — Surafbrov T / C / P 20:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Is the situation fixed? Xporc (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Hopefully. --Mordecay (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)