User talk:Mandi2517@legacy41958928


 * If you have a question for me, please ask it here. It is a good idea to keep conversations in one place. So if you ask a question here, I will respond here. If I tell or ask you something on another page, please respond on that page! . I can assure you that I will be able to see that you responded just fine.

SAY BYE ITS YOUR LAST TIME IN THE INTERNET and such
Hi there, I've just happened to notice that I've been editing the SAY BYE ITS YOUR LAST TIME IN THE INTERNET to noncannon and that you, at least the last time, edited it back to not being noncannon. I don't know very much about the content of that page whatsoever, but what I can tell it doesn't have to do with loz. How can the Valiant Comics be noncannon and this not? For me it doesn't really matter, I just wonder what makes that page cannon information. Also, take a look at the discussion for the Wind page and the Relationship of Link and Zelda page that both of us have edited as well. Final words, I'm really a beginner when it comes to writing on wikis in general so please don't be mad at me. --Olle93 23:42, 12 july 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a community page it has nothing to with any realm of the Zelda Universe at all. Canon and non cannon do not apply because it is referring to real world and not the game world. Just like the Main Page is about the site itself. So those don't get noncanon tags because that is not relevant. 23:57, July 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, exactly what Matt said. It is a page regarding an event that happened in the realm of the Zelda community. Not the actual series. So, it does not require a noncanon tag. 01:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, I get it... But be sure to check what I wrote on the zelda Link relationship discussion page. --Olle93 09:52, 13 july 2009 (UTC)

Zeldapedia
Is this "war" still going on? That last one was pathetic! I can't believe they're still going at it. Ancblue52 01:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "War"? Nah...just some Zeldapedia user probably trying to vandalize for kicks. 02:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I used the term lightly! ;-) As I recall, it was quite a problem a little while ago. Ancblue52 02:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I joined this place in August. So that whole "issue" was before my time :P That, like now, was people just trying to be idiots. 02:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Valiant Comics
Hey, about your continuation of placing non-canon tabs on Valiant Comic pages... For the most part, the majority of us agreed a few months back that we really had no say as to whether the comics were or weren't canon. As you might remember, I was one of the people who was for them being non-canon. Anyway, I took another glance, and realized that they fit into the storyline, and that Nintendo never stated anything about them. This happened on the Skype chat room. Ax, Matt (I think), Steve, and GM were there. We basically decided that we didn't have the right to conclude what is/isn't canon without clues from Nintendo. Your thoughts? P.S. How've you been? It's been a while. :) 18:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't say I really paid attention to that conversation, but I do recall the consensus being that they were not canon. I just asked Matt too, he said the same thing. In my opinion, the comics are similar to the manga. They really have nothing to do with the storyline at all. I just really can not see how they could be considered canon. 18:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Yeah, I'm still alive :P How's things going with you?


 * Two things. One, I believe that Matt said that he had not read them, and said he really couldn't take a side. Two, I don't think you were there. Anyway, with the mangas, Nintendo has stated that they are non-canon. My thought is that if we push their popularity, and they become better known in the community, Nintendo will be more likely to clarify their status. Honestly, I really don't care which one they are- just that we don't make the wrong choice. I would say that they do add to the story. It includes a background for Link, new characters, and a continuation of the story.


 * May I suggest we do what the Star Wars wiki does, and create a "label" which says "Ambiguously Canon"? It is used when there is material which very well may be canon, but has not actually been stating as to what it is. 18:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Things are going pretty well. :)


 * "create a "label" which says 'Ambiguously Canon'?"
 * Aye. Considering we really don't know for certain if they are canon or not. I'll bring that idea up with the rest of the staff. 18:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I did indeed say that. My exact words were:
 * [5/12/2009 9:06:36 PM] Matt: I can’t go either way. As I have not read them.
 * A template like that could work. It's need a decent picture though. So as not to look like the other one. 18:56, June 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright. Sounds like a plan. :) Let me know what you guys decide. 19:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Send this message to the others
I quit the Zelda Webmaster forum (you know it, the "it's a secret to everyone" thing) and left my reasons why on there. I'm still willing to work for the Wiki, but I can't co-exist on that board no more, mainly because of Avenged. It's cause Mases that Avenged stays, and it's bs. Anyways, if you guys need me, just get me on my talk page and I'll get on Skype. 12:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Death Sword
Hey Mandi, I just thought I'd let you know there is an editor who is removing things from the Hero's Spirit page against others' will, and apparently you even reverted this guy's removals as well, but he is turning this into an edit war. If you could talk to him or explain to him about edit wars, that'd be great. I don't want this to turn into another heated argument, but he's refusing to refrain from removing others' theory points, even if they have evidence to back them up. Link87 19:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for protecting the page. We have a vandalist on our hands it appears that won't have it any other way but his. Link87 21:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Red Links
Mandi, you seem to be forgetting that the point of red links is point out that the page needs to be created- not to get rid of them. I would hope that you know that I know what I'm doing, and am already working on this stuff. In the future, just give me a little while before you start reverting my edits, since I'm most likely working on something that doesn't make any sense. :) Also, about the Saria (town) page, I simply forgot to remove that part. It simply shouldn't be stated as a fact, IMO. The game was created before OoT, you know. Thanks. P.S. How've you been? I've been out of town for quite a while, so I've missed all of my pals over here! 23:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Sorry about that. I was patrolling edits, and when I seen those red links, my thought was to kill it ;) have to keep the wanted pages clean... But, I should have given you some time to create the page instead of quickly deleting it. Sorry. 00:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC) P.S. Well, welcome back :) Yeah, I'm pretty good. You?


 * It's all good. I feel the same way about the wiki. I've removed my share of red links that I now think probably should have stayed. Anyway, the red links are disappearing now that so many more people are creating new pages. The "wanted pages" section has gotten quite a bit smaller now. 00:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC) I was doing good until Firefox shrunk my resolution for no reason five minutes ago, and now I can barely see the text! It's like six point. lol


 * Weird. Is it just doing it on ZW? Or everywhere? 00:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just ZW. It's driving me crazy. It's also ballooned up before, too. It reset to normal after a few hours. Let's hope it happens again. 00:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've had that happen. You can try pressing CTRL++ a few times (or simply View --> Zoom). That might help. 00:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep- that fixed it. It happened when I pressed ctrl + X. Thanks a mill! 01:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Red Links
Oh boy, Austin is telling an admin what to do? What madness is this?! Mandi, before you delete an image, be sure to delete all links under "What Links Here." Other wise, it will show up as a red link under Special:WantedFiles. Not doing so leaves me to delete them, which gives me something to do... but you should know by now what I expect from you as an editor and admin. I'm sure you know the steps of certain tasks, and the  prerequisites to them. Just try to remember this old rule, ok? 18:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleting
Also on the subject of deleting, and creating work for people... thanks for deleting all these files, Mandi, and I'm sorry that my transparencifying project is giving you so much to do. -- 19:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, no problem at all. That's my job anyhow, and you're giving us some good image work ;D 19:54, October 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again. There's a few images at Category:Articles_for_deletion that have been overlooked - could you nail these to the wall when you get a chance please? I think that File:Greatsea.gif doesn't actually want to be deleted, despite claims, but the rest need to go. Thanks. 17:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd Redirect
is a file page, with a redirect to a file which doesn't exsist. I think the best choice of action is to delete the entire page... what do you think? 00:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed. The image was moved and no one deleted the redirect. 00:12, December 25, 2009 (UTC)


 * Rar, rar, rar, rar. ...I wanted to change up the image. :L  00:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Signature
Yeah, no problem. I have a subpage for it actually, but you guys apparently use a different code here for that than at my usual Wiki so at first I just thought it was broken. I'll fix it then. Thanks. Jo the Marten ( Shriek )  ಠ_ಠ  04:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool. Thanks :) 04:55, January 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I posted this before reading the thing at the top of your page stating to keep messages on one page. I'm use to commenting on the other person's page so they get that "New Message" thing. So sorry about that. :P Jo the Marten  ( Shriek )  ಠ_ಠ  05:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

MW Link Exchange
I talked to porplemontage on it, but he declined it, again :( He said being affiliate is fine, but that he is not interested in exchanging links :( Sorry. Tucayo (talk)
 * Added it :) You can also add yours here Tucayo (talk)
 * Thanks to you! Tucayo (talk)

Chancellor Cole
Mandi, as I said on Skype, I'm not trying to step on your toes at all, please understand that. I'm just trying to bring this article up to the level the others are and trying to improve his biography to be more focused just as you said was your original issue with it to begin with. Other admins have said they'd like to see more detail too, so why don't we wait til I'm done and reserve judgment until you've seen what I'm trying to do with it. All I'm trying to do is give good detail. Do you understand what I mean? Please feel free to talk to me on Skype about it. I'm on there now. ;) Link87 02:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not that I have a problem with detail, it's just that there is too much detail. The page is unnecessarily long and involves details that I doubt anyone would bother reading. The images I don't have a problem with, the excessive information I do. 02:22, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Mandi, the page is a lot smaller than most pages, and I don't see having a lot of detail as being a bad thing, we are an encyclopedia after all. An encyclopedia is for details and information, would you not agree? Other admins have told me they want detail too. Just tell me, what detail could you live with? I'm willing to negotiate, but with the minimal information you are wanting to leave, others just don't want it that way. So tell me, what information is it that you don't want in the appearances section, and I'll work with you to edit out those that you have the biggest problem with. By the way, are you on Skype right now? I've been trying to get in touch with you so I can consult you a little quicker and we can both work together to come to an arrangement that everyone can live with if you're on there that is. :) Link87 02:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just so it's clear, I'm not trying to edit war with you :P But, you're right; more information isn't a bad thing. But I don't see the necessity of a appearances section, considering he's only been in one game, isn't a totally major character, and also, basically everything stated in appearances is already written at the top of the page. So, it's a little redundant. And no, I'm not on Skype at the moment. Won't be for another week (just using the internet on my phone right now). 02:52, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well in that event, how about this: I'll try to go through the opening paragraph and the appearances section and try to remove any redundancies for you, would that be permissible? I can understand you don't want us to sound redundant, though we have similar sections like this one for other characters like Tetra and Medli and many others. Cole was one of the major players in Spirit Tracks, so he's naturally going to have a little background to cover. But does that sound like a fair deal to you, and since you only have your phone? That I can go through and try to minimize redundancies and try to weed out things that perhaps aren't necessary? Link87 02:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, you can remove what you deem unnecessary if you want. 02:57, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what I'll work on though, and it'll be easier since it appears it would be harder without a computer for you. But if there is anything in particular that stands out that you feel is there that shouldn't be for good reason, then just let me know on my talk page and I'll see what I can do about it for you. Link87 03:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's looking better already. It's no problem really; I've been editing on my phone all day. Not hard at all. 03:12, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok cool, and after reading the intro paragraph, I could see what you meant about redundancies. I removed some of those from the intro paragraph and saved those pieces for the biography below. I also tried to reduce overused titles or statements used more than once, though I did add a trivia section to note the debate about Cole's race. Is that all right with you? I'll keep looking for ways to streamline the article, but the trivia section was mainly just to note that Cole's race is debated. Link87 03:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help and understanding Mandi, I think things worked out for the best. There were things that could be streamlined and redundancies that needed removing to prevent boredom, and our combined efforts brought out the best possible scenario where we have good detail but remain to the point on it. So thank you for helping in that effort, and I think your input would be valuable in situations like this in the future. Don't be surprised if I may seek your input on future pages like these to reach the equilibrium we have here. ;) Link87 03:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nintendo Alliance
Hello Mandy! It would be nice if you could check this. Is an idea from Archaic that sounds really nice, it has got full support from us (MarioWiki), we just need Steve to aprove. It would be great if ZeldaWiki wanted to take part in this. Tucayo


 * Hello! Yes, we contacted Bulbapedia for an affiliation request to which they presented us with this idea. As far as I know, we're pretty much supportive of it. 23:10, January 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * And, do you use IRC chat? Its easier to make some meetings there. We MarioWiki use DarkMyst, channel is #mwikitalk Archaic has also been getting there :) Tucayo


 * We have Skype where we have some Bulbapedia members added in a chat. Do you use that? 23:19, January 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm... some members use it. Perhaps, as you and BP are there, we can try to get there :) --Tucayo 23:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest that you go to this website and type in irc.darkmyst.org into the box that says "Server" and #mwikitalk in the one that says "Channel". You could also go to this page and the channel will automatically load if you have downloaded java.--Zeldaguy1 23:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Yeah, Tucaayo, if you decide to download it, you can ask me, or one of the other users to add you to the chat. My Skype name is Mandi151993. :) 23:25, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I will admit, I have used Skype one time, and IRC seemed easier :/ But we can get used to Skype. Just one thing, can tehre be private chats? Tucayo


 * Yeah, you can have private chats. 23:30, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Downloaded, can you please add me? Nick Tucayo :) Tucayo


 * Eh... I can't find you. Can you add me instead? :/ 23:42, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Sure, Archaic tells me he is there, so I will try to get Stooben also. We should get started in this. Tucayo


 * Heh. Archaic is in my contacts :P Yeah, definitely should get started. 23:47, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Friend list
So I decided to update my friend list. As of now, I completely blanked it :P If you want me to add you, just say so here. 23:35, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sign me up! :) 04:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't mean to sound selfish, but we seem to be on good terms, plus you did add me to your friends on FaceBook. :P Jo the Marten  ( Shriek )  ಠ_ಠ  04:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mandi, we go way back! Come on! 04:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget me! 06:08, February 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Kay, I added you guys :D 18:25, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Zelda WIkia
Hi Mandi :) Check . Looks like they are angry..... --Tucayo 23:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it was an impersonator :P --Tucayo 02:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Haha... okay :P 04:19, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

HOW DARE YOU
I bet you thought you did something wrong. SIKE =) 03:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It was startling. Jus' patrollin' edits and then BOOM! "You have new messages". I thought, "Oh crap..." 03:20, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Link articles
As cipriano one nineteen said, they direct readers' interest towards related topics. I don't know why you are removing them?? It isn't unrelated subjects, a lot of ennemies shares similarities with the ones from the previous games (apparence, strategy to defeat them, and sometimes a similar name). More, lot of article here describes the same ennemies, but as the American version call them differently from one game to another, they are on different pages: so we have either to merge them or to link them. Then when something doesn't suits you don't remove everything. See the Bongo Bongo article: Them are called Aliens: they are never refered as aliens in MM, they are called ghosts (and spectres in the French version). Have a nice day Jeangabin 15:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * They direct readers, yes. But most of the links you are adding are like related...vaguely at best. I mean, thus far I've seen you linking things as a See also because it was:
 * a) In the same game.
 * b) Lived in the same habitat.
 * c) All of the above.


 * None of those are actually valid reasons to say Oh, this enemy and this one are related because they appear in the same game". If one of your edits actually relates, I won't revert it. 15:17, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I originally thought you were removing the See Also sections... but I will have to agree with Mandi on this one. But hey, don't get discouraged to edit! (And you have a point with "Them", its reffed as "ghosts" in the article.) 15:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * About the American names, since Patra and Eyesoar are the same characters (both are known as Patra in Japan), shouldn't them being merged? Where can I submit this merge? Jeangabin 18:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The See Also section needs some manner of standardization. We could overfill it easily if we linked all of the articles of enemies defeated in the exact same manner; or by type such as plant-based enemies, bosses etc. So if you want to try outlining what's important enough for it, we can listen. As far as merging based on the Japanese names alone, well we have a rule for being English based. 18:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Timeline thing
Excuse me, but LoZ/AoL are not confirmed to take place after ALttP. Please don't bring personal Bias into a wiki.

I have reverted your edits. Pinecove 01:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Reflect that onto yourself. ZW.org is not a place you can mold to your own personal theories, nor is it really a place to debate theories. This particular one is a confirmed fact stated by Nintendo. If you choose to not believe that, then it's your choice. But I'm afraid that you are not allowed to force your personal theories as fact. 02:59, February 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * No I'm sorry but it was NOT confirmed by Nintendo. It was said on the back of the AlttP box. Later on, Miyamotto stated this:

- "Ocarina of Time is the first story, then the original Legend of Zelda, then Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, and finally A Link to the Past. It's not very clear where Link's Awakening fits in--it could be anytime after Ocarina of Time." source: http://www.miyamotoshrine.com/theman/interviews/111998.shtml

Then later on Dan Owsen stated this: - Dan: The truth is, the text on the box (and possibly the Nintendo Power guide) is wrong. D'oh! If you just ignore the box text, the stories fit together better. Basically, the events in Ocarina are the "Imprisoning War" described in the SNES version's story. The Golden Land was the Sacred Realm before Ganondorf corrupted it. The order of the stories is: Ocarina, Zelda 1, Zelda 2, A Link to the Past. Since Link's Awakening was a dream (or was it?) it's hard to say where it fits."

source: http://forums.legendsalliance.com/topic/12128-help-cataloguing-creator-comments-on-timeline/page__p__306763#entry306763

I would not test me. You have been proven wrong. Deal with it.


 * I'm sorry, your evidence is not solid proof. "This particular one is a confirmed fact stated by Nintendo." It is a proven fact, there's no reason to get upset just because you're wrong. As I stated, ZW.org is not the place to debate theories - go to a forum for that crap. 03:18, February 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * You say this is officially confirmed by Nintendo and I just provided sources FROM NINTENDO OFFICIALLY which states this is not the case. Jesus do I have to put this in bold? This is not officially confirmed Seriously your "official fact" was never stated once. I don't mean to be rude, but you HAVE been proven wrong. Pinecove 03:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Pinecove, the source you provided, while from Nintendo, is not "from Nintendo" per say. Dan Owsen was an employee and one of Nintendo's top game translators, however, he is not someone credible enough to look to for substantial quotes on the Zelda series, as he did not work on them or take part in their creation at any point. Here at ZW, we look at Iwata, Miyamoto, Aenouma, and even Koji Kondo as some of the more reputable Zelda-ers, since they worked on the projects first-hand and were there during their creation enough to leave credible commentary, even if such information is later on disputed by the fans. So your quote is not legitimately confirmed by a ranking Zelda creator, just an employee, and thus, it is not a reliable Nintendo source. Don't get discouraged, though! =) 06:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The title of the game istself state: "a link to the past" because when it came out in 1991-1992 it was already planed to be a prequel of LoZ/AoL. Jeangabin 08:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Cipriano just listed the reasons. 14:50, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

A Link to the Past was a title created by Nintendo of America because it "sounded cool" You guys have not provided squat to prove ALttP is a prequel. It is not confirmed and if you hypocrites keep saying it is confirmed, I'm leaving for good. Stop treating Pinecove like shit when he did nothing to you. 16:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

@Cipriano: I DID provide a source from Miyamoto.

@Everyone else: Honestly I don't know how many times I had to say it. I provides a source from Miyamoto and then provided one from Dan Owsen who said he translated the box wrong. Speaking of which, the box is your only piece of evidence in the first place and it was negates. Seriously I REMOVED a theory I didn't put one in. And furthermore, you guys are telling me it doesn't clash with my beliefs. Guess what? I don't have any beliefs. Stop treating me like shit.Pinecove 16:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This has all gotten out of hand.
 * @Bobby: If you want to leave, no one is stopping you, however...none of this involved you - you involved yourself. 17:02, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Pinecove, Bobby. What you two don't seem to understand is the developer quotes are not irrefutable evidence. There has been cases where Siggy and Aonuma contradict each other. There have been cases where stuff they say is easily contradicted but stuff in the game (like TWW and TP being only 100 years after OoT where it's clear that it is way more than that). Also what you have to keep in mind is that what they view of their own creations changes constantly. Everything in ALTTP says it is a prequel. Ganon was dead in AoL, he never got revived with Link's blood. He cannot just reappear for ALttP and get the Triforce in the Sacred Realm, which we know that in AoL Link and the royal family had the whole thing, it didn't go back up to the realm. So stop harassing the staff with this stuff. What you want to believe isn't true. 17:55, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Those cases where shiggy and Aonuma supposedly contradict in game evidence was a mistranslation. Japanese words have no plurals so "Hundreds" could be translated as "Hundred." Furthermore Ganon has a discrepancy wherever you put LoZ. If LoZ goes after ALttP then how did Ganon come back for LoZ? Also there was a japanese script called "Sound and Drama" which occured a few years prior to when ALttP takes place where Aghanim steals the Triforce from Hyrule castle.

Please understand I'm not saying ALttP-LoZ isn't impossible, just that ALttP-LoZ is not the only possibility. Pinecove 18:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't get it. We are not proving that ALttP is wrong, we are proving IT IS NOT CONFIRMED, yet you state it is confirmed and it is our theory that it isn't. I want no part of this hypocritical bullshit 19:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Bobby, you must realize that I am not patronizing Pinecove or will ever, as I was the one that solely apologized for his treatment here, even when others did not. Pinecove, the Building Your Timeline article was not made to deject any plausible theory - it only enumerates the most popular, most strongly evidenced ones, in order to help people build their timelines as accurately as possible, in respect to the series as a whole. In no way am I saying that your position is false, it is just not the most generally accepted of the timeline placements. Maybe you should consider posting that timeline placement in a forum to see what kind of support it gets! Who knows? It could be a cult favorite! And thus, I believe this conversation has reached it's wits end. 07:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then don't confirm it as fact, put it as a popular timeline theory. As I said I'm not trying to say ALttP-LoZ is wrong, I'm just saying that there's a chance it may not be right. Pinecove 01:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Pinecove, nowhere on the page are we saying it is stone cold fact; this is the closest sentence on the page to such, and even then it enumerates what I said earlier: "The cornerstone of timeline knowledge is familiarity with the five story arcs and their proofs. Some of these connection should be immediately obvious, while others may take some exploration." The theories on that page have been scrutinized and evidenced in the entire Zelda community so far as to say that they are the 5 cornerstone arcs with their proofs. Again, I'm not saying you are wrong or any of these are right (they are all theories, chances are none of them could be right), however they are the ones with the most concrete evidence and support by the community, and thus they are the ones to be placed on the page. As I said earlier, all of these theories have sufficient fan support, so go out there and get buckets of fan support for yours! =) 05:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mandi's exact argument for keeping it on was "ZW=/=theories" so yeah, bullshit you didn't say it was fact. And it is not a cornerstone arc, it is held by half the community at best. 05:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as this nice little discussion is still ongoing, I thought I'd just post this. 06:04, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm spent in this argument, really, it's wearing me out, and we are getting nowhere. Figure this one out on your own,guys, I've posted my opinion and I'm sticking to it. 06:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ^Quoted for truth. Everyone knows where I stand on this issue, and I'm done arguing. This is worthless and petty, really :/ 06:24, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Spirit Mythes
Thank you very much. ^ _^ -- կրակ (խոսել) -- 05:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)