Talk:Battlemind

It's not making the page anti-4e and it's not strange that people notice the name happens to follow Wizards' newer naming conventions and make fun of it for that. Yes, you are free to point out that the name existed well before 4e, and what I added was an explanation of why it is still made fun of. Without that addendum, you're basically implying that anyone who does make fun of the name in this way is stupid, because if they're making fun of 4e somehow they must be grognards who prefer the older editions and don't even realise the name predates edition (which is not necessarily true; does what edition the name first came into use make any difference to someone who isn't familiar with DnD and observes the silly naming scheme?) What this does is say yes, it is an older name, but it'll be lumped in with the newer names because of its similarity.

I'm not trying to "flavour the entire wiki", I'm trying to make the article a little more neutral and explanatory. Chill out, man. --87.194.31.223 22:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The page originally stated that people have nicknamed the class, why, and commented upon that with a fact. You have added a criticism to WOTC's naming conventions to defend the people who call it "Fightbrain," effectively crossing the line and taking it too far. This page is about Battleminds, not about the people who criticize WOTC's naming conventions, or WOTC itself. You can make a page for that. Please do not inject criticisms about 4E/WOTC into a page about the class, Battlemind. Thank you.

PS: This is a subject best left alone, seriously. We've had a lot of issues with people overtly hurling criticisms about 4E in every page relevant, which has resulted in two bannings lately. Just leave 4E pages neutral, if people want to know what is wrong with 4E, they can find it rather easily without seeing it littered throughout a wiki where they aren't even expecting it. --76.94.191.184 22:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)