Talk:Tom Chilton

Back to page

104,762pages on
this wiki
Add New Page

Move Edit

Since this is about a real world person, might as well move it to his real name. --Voidvector 01:44, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Arena imbalance Edit

Such accusations need a citation, sorry. Kirkburn talk contr 07:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

the "strange dashed thing" Edit

It's actually part of the quote. [1] --User:Kaydeethree/Sig 00:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup Edit

"the Warlock community went crazy"

Indeed, I thought this page was being cleaned up :P -- Raze 06:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Remember {{NPOV}} is better than "cleanup" for anything that may be biased.Baggins 06:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I thought the problem was more bad expression than neutrality, but yeah it does sound biased. -- Raze 07:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Kalganism" Controversy moved to subpage Edit

I moved the "Kalganism" Controversy stuff to a subpage and linked it to the Tom Chilton page since it wasn't very fact-based (citing forum threads with opinions isn't convincing) and barely NPOV. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7:17 PM PST 30 Nov 2007

I disagree about the objectivity question (and in fact have twice now rewritten the section to convey more objectivity). When describing a controversy the only way to properly cover things is to link as much of the actual events as possible. Fortunately for us, forum posts are self-documenting. The point of the Kalganism portion should be to describe the controversy and explain why the word exists, without showing bias for or against those inventing the phrase.
It's actually very appropriate to report (objectively) the opinions leading to the controversy, meaning it is just as important to cite forum threads containing opinions since those opinions provide the appropriate background (just as photographs would of a real life controversy).
It should be noted, though, that reporting that people had certain opinions is different than restating those opinions as though they are fact, which is what the Kalganism section originally did.
(Also, I added extra line breaks since the page was looking mighty cluttered)
--Senorhappythepriest 15:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Re-added link to Kalganism sub-page Edit

I've re-added the link to the Kalganism sub-page. There are a lot of people playing this game who believe that Chilton is very possibly going to be primarily responsible for the end of World of Warcraft. NPOV should mean presenting both sides; not exclusively positive or negative information.

People, please do not remove or mitigate statements as baseless purely on the grounds that you yourself do not agree with them.

Petrus4 22:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, they can't be added just because you agree with them. --k_d3 22:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The sheer pettiness of Warcraft fandom never ceases to amaze me. This isn't aimed at you Petrus4, just at the people who think he is secretly attempting to destroy Warcraft, and are demanding him to be fired, or even those people that have aimed some truly horrible vitriol towards Chilton. Seriously, it's just pathetic. IMO of course... Warchiefthrall 23:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of people playing this game who believe that Chilton is very possibly going to be primarily responsible for the end of World of Warcraft. NPOV should mean presenting both sides; not exclusively positive or negative information.
Verifiability and reliability preempt NPOV. NPOV does mean presenting both sides-- when they can be cited from a reliable source. --Tyrsenus t c 03:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The above is the exact reason why I will always believe that the entire philosophy behind the NPOV policy is broken and wrong. Claims of a given source's unreliability can be falsely used in order to prevent the inclusion of information which a given poster disagrees with. It's a license for editorial corruption, and it happens on Wikipedia (if not here) on a routine basis.
Petrus4 (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I added a line that I feel references the "controversy" while still remaining mostly neutral. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words Edit

Both this article and the kalaganism article are littered with weasel words. I'm not suggesting that any commentary about how Kalgan's been handling things or the controversy he's been involved with should be summarily removed from the wiki (far from it, in fact). However, if we can't pin down specific people or groups of people for the "some people" comments, said comments will wind up getting reworded or removed. The "Raiders"/"PVPers"/"Casuals" labels are just as ambiguous and anonymous.

Even though we are an official fansite, we've gotten slapped with a DMCA takedown before. We're not wikipedia and don't have a biography of living persons policy, but libelous comments can still get the wiki in trouble. Please keep that in mind. --k_d3 23:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with
Some players have suggested that he uses an unfair bias when assessing class balance. See "Kalganism" Controversy
As long as the sub-page remains, that's about the best way to phrase that.
I do have a problem with
It is also believed by some that Chilton is in the process of systematically destroying World of Warcraft, via a modus operandi he first established with the Age of Shadows expansion that led to the demise of Ultima Online
I have removed the statement. The authors of the posts do not claim to have more knowledge of the game or the inner workings of Blizzard than you or I, and offer little evidence to support their conclusions (one even cites the other). Additionally, neither of them mentions Age of Shadows. Please refrain from posting statements such as "Chilton is [...] destroying World of Warcraft" unless you can provide a proper citation from a credible and verifiable source. --Tyrsenus t c 17:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely agreed. Although, even with citations, such a statement is almost certain to be draped in personal opinion and bias. (This quite apart from the personal attack problem, and libel issues). Kirkburn  talk  contr 17:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to ask if it should be removed as well. Agree 110% with Tyrensus and Kirk. Warchiefthrall 22:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Races Mounts and Ideas Edit

The Tigon/Saberon Would already Know Monk and be on Horde I can see them as Natural Enemy of the Worgen Like a Cat and Dog Fight and Naga Could Have Had Big Losses in Cata after the Mana Bomb And There city was Destroyed if The Sha was to mutate them again into 2 legged Naga throughout most of the Lore Ignoring Outland Itself due to the timeline it could Introduce them as a neutral faction and they could have there own city on an Island around Pandaria that sinks In an Attack there leader based on Mudusa is a Gorgon and A Titan i can also see DeZerged or Klaxxi Timelines could be brought together after an Exspansion with a Pally priest or Monk boss going down Bringing up a time portal creating 2 Liches at once which may be interesting to see A race For Alliance a Smaller version of The Gronn maybe half-breeds That was Wiped out by the legion they could be Opposite Orcs the mounts i think would be popular are flying surfboards with a Fieryskull maybe Pheonix and other Epic Patterns a Hover Bike / 2 Player Hover car  would also be popular Any Future Hero Class ranged would be nice as we have a melee hero class in the Dk both sides want Ogres and Arokkoa   Thanks


Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.