Talk:Sheikah

Sheik is not a Sheikah
Sheik is Zelda. Zelda is a Hylian. Sheik =/= Sheikah.
 * Hylian = anyone living in Hyrule. What you should have said was that Zelda is a human, which the games seem to be making more of a big deal about making a point of. Regardless, though, while Zelda may be human, when she transforms into Sheik she is physically Sheikah, therefore Sheik = Sheikah. --Ando 10:03, 7 February 2008 (EST)
 * I think you're all confusing Hylian with Hyrulean. Also, if you consider the Sheikah as a tribe rather than a race, as suggested below, then the problem ceases to exist. --Adam (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2008 (EST)
 * Ah. "Hylian" and "Hyrulean" always confused me as a kid, and I never bothered to get it straightened out. :P --Ando 19:11, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Sheik is a Sheikah
Hylians are anyone who resembles a human. Sheikahs are a tribe who were used to protect the Royal Family. So that means Sheik is a Sheikah.
 * The Sheikah were a special race of humans that were mostly killed out, and those left protected the royal family. Hylians are another special race of humans with pointed ears, and regarded as closest to the gods. The Sheikah are the shadow folk, the Gerudo the spirit folk, the Hylia the light folk, etc...KrytenKoro 21:44, 7 February 2008 (EST)

And Hyruleans are people living in Hyrule. Toon Link 2 11:54, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Shiek is a Shiekah
I'm not entirely sure the Sheikah are another race entirely. More of a cult, I think.
 * I think "tribe" would be the best description (as suggested above), and I'm almost sure that's used in-game at some point? Anyone? --Adam (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2008 (EST)
 * I just went through the text dump and I found nothing about their status as a tribe or anything except maybe this:
 * "Have you heard the legend of the 'Shadow Folk'? They are the Sheikah...the shadows of the Hylians."
 * That's it. They're known as the "Shadow Folk" and they're called the "shadows of the Hylians". That's it. Nothing else to be found. :/ --Ando 19:11, 7 February 2008 (EST)
 * The japanese does use "zoku" to refer to them, meaning tribe. (シーカー族). However, I'm pretty sure they're one of the human tribes, since Gerudo and Hylia are included in that grouping.KrytenKoro 21:42, 7 February 2008 (EST)
 * I have been thinking about that too. They seem more of cult and tribe to me then a race. I mean, they are hardly a race in my eyes. They resemble Hylians with Silver hair and red eyes which for all we know could just be a coincidence. I mean just cause Impa had red eyes and silver hair doesn't mean every Shiekah does. And as Impaz, she is probably a relative from Impa so obviously she would look a lot like hair. Just my thoughts. -Lord Harken
 * In my opinion the sheikah are more like to be a race since they are told to be the "Shadows of the Hylians". Hylian is a race, Gerudo another race (obvious because they have a man born only every 100 years) and Sheikahs is a race as well for been the shadow of another race and have similaritys between them like red eyes and white hair. If they were told to be the shadows of the hyrulean the story would be completely different. Just my thoughts too. --Fella 01:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Agahnim?
Agahnim couldn't have been the traitor that caused them to put the tear on the symbol, seeing how Ocarina Of Time happened before A Link To The Past, and therefore the tear would've already been there.

"Legends of the Temple"
Exactly what temple are we talking about? What is that section supposed to be? I'd write something there but... not sure what exactly is supposed to go there. :/ --Ando 10:03, 7 February 2008 (EST)


 * You should ask KrytenKoro since he added it, along with the text: " ". --Adam (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2008 (EST)


 * Wait, I found something in the game. When you meet Sheik in the Temple of Time, he says this:
 * "When evil rules all, an awakening voice from the Sacred Realm will call those destined to be Sages, who dwell in the five temples. One in a deep forest... One on a high mountain... One under a vast lake... One within the house of the dead... One inside a goddess of the sand... Together with the Hero of Time, the awakened ones will bind the evil and return the light of peace to the world... This is the legend of the temples passed down by my people, the Sheikah."
 * So I'm guessing that's what KrytenKoro meant by that. Beyond that quote, though, there's seems to be no more information about this supposed legend. Would this make the section moot, considering there's really nothing more to write? --Ando 19:11, 7 February 2008 (EST)
 * All I know is that it is specifically said to be a Sheikah legend, so it should be mentioned or linked to on this page. Plus we can get rid of that ugly "Temples of Power" page, since that name doesn't even make sense.KrytenKoro 21:39, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Who decided to delete all the info from the section but leave the section title? It makes the page look very, very sloppy. I don't know why this was done, and it probably should have been discussed on the talk page. So then my question is this: why is it like this?--Magnus orion 21:16, 31 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Um, if you read my post above, I explained that the section has always been blank. It was added with no (visible) text as a "placeholder", and the posts above explain (roughly) what was intended to go there. Nothing has ever been deleted from the section. Hence the template. —Adam (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2008 (EDT)


 * Oh... While this explains why there is no info there... It still makes the page look sloppy... I beleive we have two options: add the bit above with the quote and such, or delete the title section... I know that the game says it is a sheikah legend, so it probably should be mentioned in a little detail, while noting that it is disputed as to whether the person speaking even counts as a shiekah... --Magnus orion 18:04, 1 April 2008 (EDT)


 * OK, go ahead and add it. It can always be discussed/changed/removed later if required (as long as there's actually something there to start with!) —Adam (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm not entirely convinced that there's actually something to put there, honestly. It's hardly referenced at all in the game, except for "There are five sages you must save, and beat Ganon with them. That's the legend." I really can't think of any way that that could be expanded upon within the article. --Ando (T : C) 13:34, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Males?
Although the red eyes are a key example of what makes a Shiekah, so is silver/gray hair. Yet, all the possible male Shiekahs do not have silver/gray hair. The only known male to have both red eyes and silver/gray hair is the Fierce Deity transformation from Majora's Mask. However, this is just a transformation the mask does to you. Could this mean that the reason the females only appear and that there are no mention of male Shiekah is because the traitor the tale speaks of could have in fact killed all the males, or at least most of them. It's all my speculation of course. If i'm wrong on anything please correct me. ~User:Lord Harken
 * We have met two Sheikah (plus possibly Impaz): Impa and Sheik. What we know of the Sheikah are from them. Impa is supposedly the last of her kind (although TP indicates that they just formed the Hidden Village). Sheik isn't even a real Sheikah. We can make no assumptions based on those two. Especially because it's possible that Impa just grayed up early.
 * And I'm sure the "traitor" thing comes from the manga only, so nothing in there makes really much difference to Sheikah lore. Saibh 20:46, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

the eye symbol
The eye symbol tear drop stuff from the manga was receantly switched from 'may or may not be canon' to 'is not canon'. While I agree that the OoT, or any other Manga is not technically canon, ideas presented in it can be. For example, in the OoT manga, Shiek attempts to hide his/her idenity from Ganondorf by pretending to work for him, and nothing in the OoT game directly contradicts that he/she may have been pretending to work for Ganondorf to fool him. While I personally don't believe this, it may or may not be canon, even though its source contains material that verifiably isn't. Therefore, nintendo hasn't done anything to negate the manga's statement in any way, unlike say, the volgania (is that how you spell it?) issue, where the game directly contradicts the manga. Since the Manga is (most likely) approved by nintendo, anything that they do not directly contradict may possibly be canon.--Magnus orion 21:37, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Again, we can't assume things. It's not canon, because we've never had any indication that anything that happens exclusively in the manga is. Besides, the sentence said, specifically, that the manga may not be canon, not that the legend did.
 * I've said this before, there can be no assuming things because of lack of the otherwise. You can indicate that it's a widely-accepted theory, but you can't just say "it is" because nothing ever says "it's not". The manga is not canon. You have to agree with that. Nothing in it can be taken for canon, or possible canon. Things that happen in it can be used to back up, but not prove, and it never equates canon. Regardless, the most important point is that the sentence indicated that the manga might not be canon, not that legend (again).
 * Anything that happens in the manga we don't see in the games is non-canon. There should be no gray zone--there are theories (like Impaz being a Sheikah) that are backed up by canon, but not just ones that work because they don't contradict canon.
 * A better phrasing would be "In the manga, Sheik explains that blah blah, which may be applicable to the game." or some such. At any rate, this is my personal policy. Saibh 06:14, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Ah... Ok, the wording caught me. In my mind it was implying that not only was the manga not canon, but everything in the manga was not canon as well. And yes, I agree, we can't assume anything. Its just that the manga had to be approved by nintendo, so there is the possiblity of nintendo actually using parts of it as 'canon', but regradless of views and other things, the information should be included in the wiki, unbiasedly, for its mention. (PS It may not be aparent from my first post, but I loathe the manga because of the way it is written and its sheer contradiction of canon. I just think that information should just be included regardless of whether or not it is agreed with, just noting that the manga does not, necessarily consitute canon)--Magnus orion 17:13, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

"Passing References?"
Why do games like and  which don't feature the Sheikah in any fashion have their own sections? I thought stuff like the eye symbol in the Forsaken Fortress would just be listed under Trivia or somesuch. Ganondorfdude11 00:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the Impa from the Oracles games is never confirmed to be Sheikah. Ganondorfdude11 00:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, if there is a reference or appearance of the Sheikah, I gave them a section each, I see nothing wrong with that. I will try to write in that no actual Sheikah themselves appear in the game however, as you have said. I just want to make sure the games that do have references to the Sheikah are given note as well, that's all. And the Impa of the Oracle games is never said not to have been a Sheikah either, but following OOT, the Impa character is established as a Sheikah, and her possession of the red eyes and pointed ears proves that. It is not confirmed about the versions of Impa before OOT, but OOT and beyond do establish her as a Sheikah. Link87 00:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The red eyes and pointed ears rule is generally fanon-made, so the Impa from the Oracles should really go under "Possible Members," because she is never said to be Sheikah. Note that she doesn't even wear the eye symbol. It might be a similar situation to Fado, where there are two Fados who are Kokiri but one who is Ordonian. I'm not saying she isn't one, but it isn't confirmed and is really presumptuous to assign a race to a character when the name of the race isn't even mentioned in dialogue or heavily implied like in the case.Ganondorfdude11 00:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ganondorfdude11, those are not fanon-made, they are featured in-game and established as such. Fado is merely a name, not a biological feature, so that does not really compare in this case. All evidence points to her being one, and it is established post-1998 that her character is of the Sheikah race. It is the early games that are unknown. I see no presumption in the establishment by Nintendo that starting after 1998, her character is defined as a Sheikah, and even that is kept in TP. Impaz is all but certain to be a Sheikah, and she even states that she is named for the one that founded the village, which most agree is Impa. That being said, the Sheikah establishment of Impa's character has been established since 1998 and hasn't changed since. Link87 01:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just be careful not to read into things too much to force them to fit possible theories. Impaz being named for Impa does not mean she's a descendent of Impa, nor does it mean she's Sheikah. Look at OoT, Darunia names his son after Link the Hylian. So Link the Goron can say that he was named for the Hero of Time, but that does not make him Hylian, nor a descendent of Link. Lysia 01:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Duly noted Lysia, but it does not read that Impaz is Impa's descendant, but it's all but certain her name comes from Impa however, the evidence is overwhelming there. Link87 01:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While it's true that the implication is there, it could very well be like the Fado case. I just think that she should be moved down into the "possible members" section we have already. And stuff like the Gossip Stones and Eye Symbol should really be compressed into one section. No Sheikah are seen in, , or . The eye symbols are just cameo appearances, so maybe trim and put a section for cameos? Ganondorfdude11 01:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Fado case is merely concerning a name though GD11, it's not about biological features like this case. They are completely different. And as for the possible members section, I had planned to phase that out since the community did not like it and put the label on the page to begin with. Did you see the structure I developed in my sandbox? What are your feelings on the way it has shaped up there? And I am open to the idea you suggested about compressing, but can you explain or elaborate more for me so I have a clearer idea what you mean? Link87 01:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is clear evidence that Impa from Oracles is supposed to be Sheikah, so I'm not messing with that anymore. Ganondorfdude11 01:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's all right GD11, but can you tell me more about your other idea? What did you mean? Are you wanting to keep the Members of the Tribe section or not?? Link87 01:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I read through and saw that most of the stuff in that section was covered by your text, so I just deleted it. Ganondorfdude11 05:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Should Hero's Charm be mentioned in the Artifacts section?
This is a problematic thing to place. It is mentioned as being a cameo of the Sheikah eye symbol in the section, and functions much like the Lens of Truth and the Mask of Truth in that it reveals enemy health. Since references to the Sheikah are few, I'm not sure if the implication is supposed to be that it's Sheikah in origin or not. Any thoughts? Ganondorfdude11 18:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What references for it do you have? Tetra's little stone thing could be mentioned I think. 18:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Tetra's Pirate Charm is essentially a portable Gossip Stone, so I'll add it to the Gossip stone section. There are no references for the Hero's Charm, so I guess it would be better to leave it off. It does seem suspiciously similar to the Mask of Truth. But that might just be personal opinion talking. Ganondorfdude11 19:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Theories
Christopher, you re-added the following sentence into this article, which had been removed:

"A very similar symbol appears on the throne of the ruler of the Twilight Realm and on the back of the Fused Shadow as well."

This is in the revision dated 01:38, 27 October 2009. Your comment was, "...it is noteworthy b/c that is what has given rise to the Interloper/Twili Theory that has to be written." Theories should be kept separate from the main article. So wouldn't it be better to put this sentence into the theory section itself, once it's been written? I don't like the idea of including it in the main article purely to support a theory, especially as said theory hasn't even been written yet. Lysia 05:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Lysia, I re-added it yes, but made clear that it is not identical to the main Sheikah symbol. We spoke of Agahnim's symbol as well, so there's really no difference there. I can understand what you are saying, but it's not really a theory to simply point out that a similar symbol appears in those places in the game as well. So what I'm saying is please don't confuse the theory itself with a minor tidbit that is not a theory but a fact. That being said, I took the liberty to go on and write that particular section for the theory so that others may understand that statement above better. If you still want it removed from the main article after this, that is fine, but there is really no difference between this and Agahnim's symbol being spoken about in the "Eye of the Sheikah" section, and none of those are theories, they are just statements made to mark those appearances of similar symbols. Link87 15:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It should go in the "Trivia" section, anyway... 22:39, October 27, 2009 (UTC)


 * That is also possible, but it deals with the symbol. Either way, I don't mind, but it is relevant as I said, both Agahnim's symbol as well as the Twili symbol b/c they show the evolution of Nintendo's use of such a symbol. Link87 23:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Upon closer inspection of the Twili symbol, it doesn't seem to represent an eye at all. Maybe we're just seeing something in a geometric design that's not supposed to indicate anything? Ganondorfdude11 04:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Disregard the previous statement, I was thinking of a different symbol. Ganondorfdude11 04:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

At least a Thank you ZeldaWikia?
Your article was completely extracted from Zelda Wikia, link here [http:/zelda.wikia.com/wiki/Sheikah Sheikah]. Our wikis don't say a word about copyrights because that is not the idea, but what you did was so obvious, I think the idea is to compete not copy, but all I see here is a paraphrased text, same titles with different order, and nothing new to give. At least a please or thank you could have work. I don't know how you admins congratulate the user/users that do this kind of things. TheNewSheik 17:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not defending anyone, but if they copied it we wouldn't have references, images, and it would have been done in fewer edits. Our Zelda games are pretty much the same, and encyclopedias follow similar formats. So the overview between the two are going to have similarities. If we have an article for Spirit Tracks before Wikia, don't expect me to accuse anyone of 'copying' our article. 17:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a false accusation I'm afraid, all of this article was written by heart, not by copying or paraphrasing, and I will not "thank" anyone that had nothing to do with the aiding of building this article from scratch. Those that deserve thanks are Ax, GD11, and whoever else aided in this article's face-lift. This article is bound to be somewhat similar to any article written on the Sheikah. Simply b/c it may now surpass ZP's does not give them ownership over any part of this topic. So sorry, but I do not give credit where it is not due ZP. Link87 17:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Well solving minor details, our Sheikah article has references and images. If you didn't extract all you did from Zeldawikia, then link me something as complete a now the two wikis Sheikah articles. You won't find. Telling that you didn't have a window with Zeldawikia open while you write is hard to believe. I will no demand you to give credits, is enough with you daring to say you didn't copy anything. TheNewSheik 03:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Warping 03:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry NewSheik, but not one word of our article comes from yours, considering that ZP's is full of fan-fic statements that have no references to back them up and that it has a confusing structure to it. I'd suggest you go back to your own wiki and do something constructive, like cleaning up the fan-fic. And for your information, if we copied so much, why is our article's history filled with edits proving we made this article piece-by-piece?? It's a little hard to dispute cold, hard fact. As I said before though, I suggest you quit belly-aching about our article's new quality and go do something constructive on your own wiki. Link87 04:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? Our Sheikah article has even a page with all the references for the article, didn't you checked it when you use your Gust Jar function? And what about doing part by part? you could have went "warping" part by part from our article, also I imagine that admins need to correct when you do a bad paraphrasis. Our so fan fic? why to use it? TheNewSheik 04:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not one reference I could see on that page period, and for the last time, yours was not used as a reference at all for that very reason. It's inevitable some things are going to be similar. Oh yes, and our articles are about the same size, and half of yours is theory or fan-fic, so that doesn't really count. Sorry to disappoint you buddy, but you're making false accusations that don't have any place here. Link87 04:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can personally guarantee that every article on here is the work of a collaboration of individuals writing by heart. Nothing here was taken from Zeldapedia. I've contributed to a good portion of these articles and I've seen the rest. Please don't chuck accusations at us. Thank you. And you should probably cool off just a bit. If you think you have real evidence of theft, calmly and kindly bring it up on an administrator's talk page. 04:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't now what is your basis to say ours Sheikah article is fan-fic find for Sheikah/Quotes to see who is doing bad accusations? but if your are so based on references and in a encyclopedic way, for a start, then where are the references for the manga part or for one of your first sentences: "magical race devoted to the great Golden Goddesses"? TheNewSheik 04:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I will not continue with the discussion, it was enough taking a part of the disscusion page. I hope not to be discussing again soon. Long life to the user who write with the heart!TheNewSheik 04:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * TheNewSheik, once again, ours is based solely upon fact, and the same cannot be said for ZP's article (for example, see some of their wild claims about Bongo Bongo and the like on their page). Your accusations are false, and we have multiple members that can attest that this page was our own work. CASE DISMISSED. Link87 04:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't want to restart but our Bongo-Bongo section is under the theory template. And again that devotion to the goddesses is untrue in the parameters of fact. TheNewSheik 04:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong again, if they didn't serve the goddesses as well, then why did they have a legend about the Triforce?? Think about those things in future. This discussion is closed. Link87 05:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, seriously I thought on that, but the last time that I read their quotes I didn't even saw the word "goddesses".


 * Oh, so Sheik didn't state that the legend of the Triforce and the Sacred Realm was "passed down by the Sheikah", and Impaz didn't state that meeting Ilia was "ordained by the gods"??? Get your sources right man before grasping at straws. Link87 05:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Easy man, we end the disscusion what I mean is that stating that their are devote to the goddesses is an assumption not a fact, they could just be as believers as all Hyrule is, but not devoted. I'm not seeing the "based solely upon fact" you say. Implying that they are devoted just because they know of a Triforce is harsh, Ganondorf knows about it, is he devoted too?. TheNewSheik 05:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You're bordering on ridiculous buddy, if they believe in the Triforce and serve the Royal Family and are revered as Impaz indicated, OF COURSE they are devoted. To suggest otherwise is stupidity at its best, and all I see here is grasping at straws with no real case being present. You've had your 15 ridiculous minutes of fame here, but this case is closed as there is no case and it was very stupid of you to throw these baseless accusations to start with. You've wasted enough of our valuable time, discussion ended. Link87 07:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Aww come on Chris, this is now my favorite accuser. I mean if people judge the site he represents and/or his accusations by the gibberish he types, then well, that makes this wiki look brilliant! I don't want him to go away as long as he makes it clear he's a Zeldapedia Editor, so no one thinks this is one of ours. 07:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If I may interject, English isn't his first language.... so perhaps you shouldn't be so hasty to jump to conclusions thinking we're incompetent.T14 01:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * lol. I guess he's kind of right. 07:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Is everyone from Zeldapedia as much of a tool as you are? You should go back to your own Wiki and stop worrying about us. You could seriously be editing an article about Tingle right now. =] --Xizor 07:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

lol, they have 3,000 articles... that's more than us... 0_o 07:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * http://zelda.wikia.com/wiki/Reekfish_Scent I'm not jealous, we place similar content into one article and they split it all apart to have 3k tiny articles. And then there's things like an article for one room of one dungeon with the name "Tip of the Nose". So, not impressed. 08:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OMG, you have GOT to be kidding me, right???? Who in the world would make stubs for every single scent learned in TP???? Now that really IS ridiculous. Link87 23:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * yet over here half the pages are based on other websites and site history Don Lark Kiin

Yeah, don't bother ever asking us to remove anything ever again. Seeing as all you idiots ever do is deny everything anytime we have an issue, you can fully expect us to do the same in the future. And what's really embarassing Axiomist is that you would defend this tool box Hero of Time, not the fact that we dominate you on every level. Oh, and speaking of domination and your "warping" article; that is a pretty well written article. The first paragraph is brilliant, very much worthy of a featured article... haha... --EDJoe45 23:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No idea what all that ridiculous rambling was about, but may I make a suggestion Mr. Ed??? Go back to your fan-fic wiki where you belong and quit spewing nonsense, we have work to do around here that is more deserving of our attention than some nameless rambler from the stepchild wiki. Link87 23:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are such a loser HoT. Plain and simple. Either way this isn't really about you. God knows you'll never fess up to anything because your dismal existence won't allow it. This is directed at your admins, who claim to be just, but prove the opposite. Errr, actually, seems like you'd fit in with this crew quite nicely. A Zeldapedia reject of course can make it in this place. Doesn't surprise me. --EDJoe45 23:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I didn't make myself clear Mr. Ed, I am an editor of Zelda Wiki and do not and have never had a name like what you state. I'd say you are delusional, but I'm going to be the bigger person here and just tell you to quit while you are ahead. Go back to the stepchild wiki and leave our good wiki be, unless you wish to incur penalties as pursuant to our policies here. Link87 00:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are the most pathetic being I have ever conversed with. You honestly think you are kidding people when everyone knows its you, and everyone has for a while. I love how when people ask you if you are HoT, you say no, yet talk him up while putting down the other Zeldapedia admins. You are so desperate it makes me thank god that I am not you. So maybe I will go back to my wiki, but you won't. You see, you can't since you've been blocked for being a waste of life. --EDJoe45 00:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There you go again Mr. Ed, making up delusional stories to bash our fair operation here simply b/c we have a better operation and more cooperation here. I was indeed once an editor on your wiki but left long ago of my own accord due to the dysfunctional lack of cooperation your wiki seems to represent. But no, that was not my name, believe it or not, I don't really care if you do. Yes I knew the guy you were talking about, he did some things I didn't personally agree with, but he was not a bad guy from what I knew of him. I don't blame him for leaving your operation if you treated him in any way like you are here. So sorry to burst your bubble, but you've got the wrong guy I'm afraid, and no matter how many times you try to say it, it won't make it any more true. Of course if it brings you some strange delusional pleasure, don't let me stop you. In the meantime, stay off our wiki and start using a respectful tone toward our admin council unless you want penalties exacted upon you in accordance with our polices. Link87 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What was your user name? --EDJoe45 00:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We're talking like almost a year, year and a half ago buddy. I dissolved my account there of my own accord but began editing here near the start of this past summer when I remembered this place. I don't even remember what my name was there exactly, it was like LoZLover or something, but that's irrelevant now as I now work for our operation here. I don't remember if the name had anything else in it, it's been too long ago. Link87 00:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course you conveniently "don't remember". Well lets make this easier, tell me some things you edited. In fact tell me one page you edited. If you say you can't remember one, it just proves your full of s***. So tell me one and I'll find your user name "LoZLover". --EDJoe45 00:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Seriously guys, take it somewhere else and please stop spamming the talk page with trying to figure out who Chris is from ZP, alright? Any comments not involving the Sheikah article will be deleted after this warning. Thank you. Dany36 00:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to sound blunt Mr. Ed, but I dissolved my account there, if you will kindly remember, hence I doubt you'd find much there on me. I personally requested it, I forget who it was that did it for me, you're talking over a year ago. And secondly, once again it's been quite a while and I was only an occasional editor there, I don't remember everything I edited there b/c I wasn't a constant editor there. And all of this is irrelevant and has nothing to do with our wiki. Unless you have things to back up your accusations, I'd suggest watching what you say, it will not endear you to anyone here. If you continue to harass us, I will alert one of our capable admins to your rude demeanor. Link87 00:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hahaha of course you would make some bullshit excuse you loser. But I got you, we all know its you. Keep living your pathetic life. And for the record this article was stolen from ZP. Bottom line you can deny it all you want, but don't ever even think about telling us to remove anything that was "stolen" from here again. --EDJoe45 00:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * These false conspiracy theories are not related to the Sheikah, and your rudeness and false accusations have no place here sir. If you continue this, you may not like what results. Just a friendly suggestion. Link87 00:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Whats gonna happen tough guy? Am I going to get blocked? Ok, so all that will do is prove you idiots can't handle the truth and you couldn't pay me to edit here so it wouldn't effect me personally at all. --EDJoe45 00:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, this article was not copied from ZP. I mean, we both have encyclopedias that are BOTH regarding the same game. Come on, you know there are going to be some things that are going to resemble each other. Both articles have different characteristics, different points, and generally a different writing style. These articles were not copied. There are, however, some similarities, but, that's most likely coincidence. 00:53, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes they definitely were, bottom line. So once again, don't ever tell us to remove anything again. We can play this game too. --EDJoe45 00:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've seen enough. This has got to stop, and I'm not just directing this at the Zeldapedia users. My fellow Zelda Wiki editors should by NO means be insulting them and furthering a conflict. Cease and desist at once.

To Zeldapedia users: If you believe you have hard evidence of theft, report it to an admin. Don't go around doing this. It doesn't get you anywhere. 03:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh...what was the good of this?CC 02:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You complain about Zeldapedia theories, but still you do "Trinity of Truth" that is just laughable. If the Stone of Agony is Sheikah, then what's the point of doing a complete section just to talk about awareness and three items that you already stated that are Sheikah? Is just ridiculous and uninteresting theory, so if I found three similar items then is a trinity, then we can have the Trinity of Arrows, the Trinity of Bombs, the Trinity of Tunics, the Trinity of Oracles!..., you can't just make a little mention of that in items?. But in general is just complete useless and pointless. Principally, how can you state the Stone of Agony as a Sheikah relic? Oh sorry, your wiki is "based solely upon fact". TheNewSheik 15:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you go back where you belong and quit spouting nonsense. If you even bothered to read, you'd see an official source confirms it. Too bad though, there's an outbreak of foot-in-mouth disease coming from the other wiki it seems. It is also ironic that with as much work as needs doing on both wikis that the members of our counterpart waste their time trying to spew nonsense out of jealousy when they could actually be doing something useful on the other side. But hey, that's ZP for you. Link87 17:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Stone of Agony
I'm not sure we can actually can the Stone of Agony a Sheikah artifact. The Stone of Agony does not possess the Sheikah emblem like the Lens of Truth, the Mask of Truth, and the Gossip Stones. Yes, it does say that the Stone of Agony is the companion item for the Lens of Truth, but just because the Lens of Truth was made by the Sheikah, we can't really say the same for the Stone of Agony. Saying so is mere speculation, and it'd be better if that were to go under the theory section instead of making it seem like a fact. What do you guys think? Dany36 15:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Especially since the only place that says it is a companion item is Zelda.com, which is renowned for making up crap. 16:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I find it to be no coincidence that the Stone of Agony being acquired in Kakariko, just as the Lens of Truth, to be no coincidence whatsoever. Furthermore, the titles appear to be laid out as "The ___ of ____", so that also plays into this. 16:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with listing it as a relic, there is an official source that confirms it is a companion to the others regardless of the source's reputation. That insert about it was not just made up out of thin air, it does come from the official site nonetheless. If there is a source, it's fair to list in my book. Link87 17:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The insert wasn't made out of thin air, but the source was. Nintendo of America has no more of a right to add canon to the series than we do. They didn't make the games, they just translated them. 17:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's an opinion Triforce. So nothing about the Imprisoning War is true now according to you, b/c it came from NoA?? Sorry, but an opinion does not change the fact that it came from Nintendo, is an official source regardless of what some may think of it, and thus is fair to be mentioned. Link87 18:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * At the very least, I'll add the source where that came from since right now that statement doesn't have any references. Dany36 18:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you talking about/ The IW didn't come from NoA. NoJ made it. And it's not an opinion. If they say it without getting consent from NoJ, it is the same as if we said it. 18:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

All opinions again. Just b/c you give NoJ more prominence over NoA doesn't make it so? Is that also why we give NoA information more prominence here?? B/c we do you know? Simply b/c you feel NoA isn't as credible as NoJ doesn't make it so. Sorry but that's just the truth. Link87 18:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While it is indeed plausible that the Stone of Agony is Sheikah in origin, I'm thinking that it should just be mentioned in the theories section. Zelda.com is hardly a reliable source. They said that there was only one Link up until TWW came out, and still say that ALttP and MM star the same Link. They also treat Koholint Island as a real place instead of a dream world. Heck, just look at our own article for Zelda.com to see all the mistakes they've made. Ganondorfdude11 22:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, regardless of how often Zelda.com updates their site, it is an official source and confirms the stone to be a companion to the other two. The information has been there for years. Therefore it's fine the way it is. Dany went ahead and took a step further to source it, so that should be the end of it. And for the record guys, see  for the real reason this disruption was instigated. The stone is fine where it is, but there were ulterior motives by the original complainer, who has been known to fabricate wild theories with no sources at all to back them up and has scattered them throughout their article on the Sheikah. Link87 23:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry man, but I'm not taking your theories, I'm just showing the fancy and useless they are, and that is only published in my user page… But I apologize, I will take that out if you feel offended or if you say I'm stealing something. Again if your going to believe something based on Zelda.com then I'm no more "wild" theorist than you are. Also, I believe you should let your companions decide if that should go in or not, it is not about what I said anymore. TheNewSheik 22:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion is closed, as the true intent of this distraction has been seen. Your theories have no source period from what I've read of the ZP article, and the least that can be said for this case is that an official source does exist. Some of our most senior admins agree that if it is not controverted by anything, it is able to be used as a source. So do yourself a favor, go back to your wiki where you belong, and do something constructive there. This is Zelda Wiki, not ZP, and we have better and more important things to do than to waste on frivolous complaints from users of the other wiki with ulterior motives. And for the record, a perfect example, as taken from the Bongo Bongo section of their page: "This man was supposedly a Dark Interloper during the Hyrulean Civil War who was executed for his alignment in the conflict." Now if that isn't a wild theory with no real source or evidence to back it up, I don't know what is. Link87 22:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We aren't writing a bible, or even try to convince any one this IS an OFFICIAL Sheikah Item. All we are doing is documenting the info from Nintendo. As long as we have a source for disputed aspects people can weigh its merits themselves. Chris and I talked about it before and I told him that without any manner of a source connecting it to the Sheikah I wouldn't allow it to go into this article. The Trinity of Truth is a user piece of work, and as such nothing in is meant to be taken as canon, nor the view of ZW as a whole. We just add them up bc we think they are nice reads and would interest our viewer base. Even you TNS would be able to submit a draft for the staff to decide if we'd present that here. 03:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, my thoughts exactly Ax. We've established a source for the information, and the Trinity of Truth is in the proper theory section, which follows standard procedure. And that's that. Link87 04:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Size of Page
This page is now the largest page here on ZW, and needs to be cut down. I'll give the editors a few days to work this out, and then I'm just gonna roll the tanks in and take out everything that's unnecessary and cumbersome. Believe me, this page has no reason to be even half this large. --Xizor 06:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it does, given all the references to them made throughout the series, but you need to have a full knowledge of the series to know that. I agree with helping loading time, but I disagree with just cutting without any real strategy beyond that. You can't just go bombing articles simply due to size without thinking it through first. As to this, I suggest a similar strategy as with Hyrule. Also, it would be helpful, if you're so concerned about size all of a sudden, if you could help move that data you removed on Labrynna's page to their respective pages, which would substantially improve many other pages. It's very easy to just cut and remove things, but you appreciate it more when you've put time in to actually build it. I've written most of that text, all that's needed is someone to go back in the history and move them to their respective pages. Link87 06:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I second this notion, Chris. And for future reference, Xizor, I modified the template so that whoever places it can define specifically what section is in need of cutting, if any in particular... if the entire article is in need of "weight loss", just type "entire" into the template. Easy as that. 06:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot of this stuff is pointless storytelling. Often the parts that are cited are just paraphrases of their sources. This is an encyclopedia, not a story book, and everything I removed can either be added to their respective pages by users who feel it's necessary (since most of what I removed was plot summary of the game, which would only make sense on one page, and even still was excessive), but for the most part it was just pointless stuff. I told you, I will give you time to do with this page as you will, since you wrote it, but after a few days if it hasn't been made concise, I will make it concise. The Sheikah, I'm sorry, should not have a larger article than Zelda, Link, Ganon, the Master Sword, and the Triforce, all of which are unarguably more important to the series. This article is excessive. --Xizor 06:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Newsflash: Encyclopedias are the quintessential books that tell stories, and lack of detail is the biggest problem with several. I appreciate you giving time to work on it, but you could lend a hand too if you're so concerned about all this all of a sudden too. Not all of us have a relatively simple schedule. I did all the work of putting it together, surely you could lend a hand to help if you would like these things to get done too. It's real easy to give orders and to erase things, much harder to write and compose material that up to this point nobody seemed to have a problem with. I also question why this was not brought up sooner, why months after work was completed on these articles are we all of a sudden just bringing these issues up? And nothing that was written was "pointless" if you know the series, but I understand you don't know it as well as some, so I am understanding of that. Just a friendly piece of advice: think before cutting material that you may not fully understand value-wise or think of creative ways to perhaps use the material elsewhere to improve other parts of the wiki. The Labrynna article is a perfect example: Dany had suggested moving that material to their respective pages before in a creative twist, and that's being progressive. Why throw all that away when it can be used to greatly improve a multitude of other articles? And in terms of size, certain topics such as Hyrule, what did you expect? That it would just be three paragraphs and a couple of pictures? Just try to see the big picture here. I understand your concerns 100% and am trying to meet them, but you need to realize that there's more information to the entire series than I think you realize. Link87 06:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I realize just fine, and I don't appreciate the condescending attitude. I know a lot about Zelda, and I also know a lot about running websites. These pages are too big. An exmaple of something completely unnecessary on this page is the entire "Artifacts" section. It could easily be a simple paragraph, and those things could be put onto subpages. Hell, the pages about some of the stuff linked on the Sheikah page is in more need of attention in terms of detail than this article. This type of article should not be a repeat of information found elsewhere. It should either include general information not appropriate anywhere else, or be some sort of generalizing hub. The point is, this article is too specific, too large, and still in need of attention in terms of cutting down. An example of the kind of superfluous language I'm talking about is this: "For example, the alter ego of Princess Zelda is a Sheikah named Sheik, who possesses both the red eyes and pointed ears that are exclusive of the Sheikah race; It is unknown exactly how she achieved this however, whether by magic or by means of a simple disguise, thus throwing this instance of a Hylian-Sheikah crossover into question. On the other hand, Zelda does wear a robe displaying the Sheikah Eye Symbol in the later game of Twilight Princess and even possesses the mark on her regal gown's shoulder pads as well, though this could simply be a reference to the Royal Family's relationship with the Sheikah rather than the Hylian race at large." I question seriously what this has at all to do with the "Characteristics and Abilities" of the Sheikah.

Furthermore, an encyclopedia is not a storybook. An encyclopedia is, for all intents and purposes, a reference book. It would be highly inappropriate for Encyclopedia Britannica to include a full biography of every person listed in there. That would be silly. It's the same here. An article on the Sheikah should not chronicle everything to do with the Sheikah. It should be brief, concise, informative, and lead the reader on to more lucrative pages if the desire for more knowledge is present. Perhaps that's not how Wikipedia does it, but we want to reduce the size of all these cumbersome pages dramatically. Much as I'd love to go through every article, and carefully extract everything, I'm not the only editor here, and I'm certainly not the editor most invested in the preservation of the information on these pages. My approach to the Labrynna page was demonstrative of what I'm willing to do to accomplish my ends. Nobody objected at the time, and you even agreed with it at first, and here you are now beginning to say that it was rash and unhelpful. Thus, I'm giving YOU the opportunity to preserve your work and reorganize it in a manner we find acceptable. If this page does not get down to ~35,000kb or lower by Saturday, I'll just do it myself in the same manner I did to the Labrynna page.

Also, when an Administrator or Bureaucrat puts a template on a page, users don't have the right to remove them. I tolerated it for the Hyrule page because you removed a lot and that page is relatively acceptable. However, this page is not, and that template does not get removed until I remove it. If it disappears again, the page will get locked, and I will do my dirty work, and I will move on to my next target. --Xizor 08:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, reading this discussion gave me a serious case of déjà vu; Chris made these same points every other time when challenged, and the response from Xizor (or any other admin) was generally the same too. There's definitely an established pattern to these confrontations; neither side's going to back down (except one has all the power). I suppose what it comes down to is that the majority want the page one way, and a minority want it another. So we either reach a compromise, or the maority wins; such is the nature of consensus, the foundation of any good community wiki. My point is this; Chris, unless you're willing to modify your views, there's no point in continuing to argue here. instead, focus your time on editing the page itself, and we'll all spare ourselves the ordeal of reliving past discussions and arriving at the same impasse as ever. 12:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL, some people astound me, especially when they're not forthcoming. Xizor, I heard it from your own mouth, and I quote as per Skype on October 5, 2009 at 12:03 AM: "I'm not the most knowledgeable about Zelda, nor am I the most active on the Wiki, but I have run websites and communities for years, and I'd like to think I'm ok at it." Those were your own words, so who's the one not being willing to accept facts here? I never "condescended" you, and I don't care for the attitude. You act as though you're God when you're not, and you jump to this attitude when nobody meant you any harm. You have the right to raise the issue of loading pages since you run some websites, but due to your limited knowledge of Zelda by your own admittance, I think it's better left up to those who have a full knowledge of the series, such as other admins or bureaucrats that know the biggest part of the series, to determine what information is "pointless" and what's not. I never meant you any harm, I simply told you that if it's such a pressing issue for you all of a sudden that perhaps you could help lend a hand to do it too if some of us such as myself aren't able to get to it soon due to our schedules. And just because you're a "bureaucrat" doesn't make you an expert on the series nor does it give you the unilateral right to establish "35,000 bytes" as page size for the entire wiki, that belongs to the entire staff not you alone. And it's been cut about as much as could be hoped already, I'll check again, but even if it's not that size, there is no rule for a page having to be below a certain size on here, not at all. I dropped the size of this page by 22,000 bytes, and you're still wanting an unnecessary label for the page, despite the fact that there's others that are bigger than this? Who's not willing to compromise here? Also it is not in the power of a single staff member to lock a page simply so they can modify it the way they want, that's purely against the rules and breaches the good faith trust between users and the staff. Though you have a high position on the staff and deserve some degree of respect, the staff has rules to abide by as well, including you. You seem more interested in cutting the wiki down than building it up.


 * Adam, Have you not been looking at what I've been doing? I've been trying to compromise here by doing a lot of moving around, and you're accusing me of being the one that's not negotiating. That's wrong, and I reject that criticism. I agree compromise is the best way to approach problems, but I will not be treated in a disrespectful way either if the other side is going to refuse to come to the table too. I would hope that you would be able to see that by this point, I took time out of my homework last night to come here and try to answer Xizor's concerns, and I even tried to open discussion and give advice about future encounters like this, and you're saying I'm the one that's not willing to negotiate? Wrong person. I like you and respect you a lot Adam, and I think you're one of the most moderate admins here, but when one of the staff oversteps their bounds and breaks protocol, I would hope you would have words for him as well. My basic point is this: I'm more than willing to negotiate to answer concerns of the staff and others, but I will not be treated like a dog after all the work I've done for this place. And one other thing: the improvement label is not exactly truthful when it says "improve it in any way you see fit" because sooner or later others slam you for not having done it the way they think it should be done, despite the fact that they never made that clear to begin with. If people want things done a certain way and yet invite others to "improve as they see fit", it makes one not even want to have anything to do with these pages in need of improvement. If these people with issues don't make those issues clear right away, then those like me that do all the "dirty work" can't be faulted for remodeling these articles "as we see fit". If others wanted it done a certain way and a certain size, then I ask why they did not do the whole project themselves. I've seen no big "majority" here saying they want the page one way or the other, simply a staff member that's not around a whole bunch all of a sudden raising issues nobody else raised all these months. I propose this to those of you that are complaining though: if you don't like it, do it yourselves the next time, but don't invite others to "improve as they see fit" either. I'm getting to the point I could care less, I have several hard classes this semester in school, not exactly a high school schedule, and as Xizor said, "I have bigger fish to fry" than trying to improve articles that need it only to have people try to bat me over the head for not doing it the way they personally think it should have. I'm to the point that I could care less how the pages look, I have up to this point and have wanted to help them be better, but all this micro-managing and backseat-driving on these pages has alienated me from wanting to even put in the time to do them much anymore. Link87 15:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As I am also soon to be looking to cut down articles that need it, I suppose I should interject here. This article is too long, it's that simple. Even in the "line" Xizor quoted about Zelda's alter Ego... Sheik isn't an alter ego. After Link dissapeared for 7 years, she became a Sheik to go into hiding. It wasn't some alter ego, it was a disguise to hide herself from Ganondorf, and to later help Link discretely. The wording, in that of itself, was fanwork. Completely unsupported by the actual events in Ocarina of Time. Also, the Sheikah are not "hugely" references throughout the series, outside of the "symbol" showing up here and there, of which we can really only speculate it's meaning. Where as you may feel Xizor is not something with extreme knowledge of the series, I assure you I am someone with this knowledge, and a lot of the "story telling" in this article has to go. Not just because we are a fact telling site, not a story telling site, but mainly because how a lot of it is worded leads to falsehoods or "commonly accepted" theories to who and what a Sheikah is, instead of just presenting facts and letting the reader decide. Unfortunately, we do not know, honestly in terms of facts, a whole lot about the Sheikah, yet this size of article makes it look like we do. A lot of the story telling is indeed fanon - there is nothing in the games to really backup half of what is being said, and if there is it's subtle hints that should be noted, but not stated that it means "this" when really as fans, we have no idea if it has any meaning at all. In short, I support Xizor, and this isn't the first time it's come up. THere were 10 or so articles listed in our staff boards pertaining to stuff thats too long and we just haven't had time to get to it due to some behind the scenes stuff. Now we do, so now it's being taken care of.


 * I merely ask if you wish to move stuff to other pages first, you have the time to do so. But not a lot of time, admittedly, and there is a lot stuff on the page that has no business being on this wiki. Like he said, you have till saturday to sort it out before we as a staff step in. Oh, and yeah you cannot remove staff added templates, that is the job of the staff to remove them, as they are obviously paying attention to that page and they themselves will deem when it's appropriate to take it down. Sorry if this sounds harsh Chris, but like adam said these confrontations with you seem to keep happening again and again ... Nathanial Rumphol-Janc 19:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand what you say Nathan, but sometimes confrontations need to happen with people that overstep their bounds. Xizor is out of line in believing he owns this wiki, and I do not support that mentality. If you do, great for you, but I don't subscribe to it. I understand you want things moved, and I've done so, yet you all act as though I haven't. You give me no credit there it seems when I try to accomodate all of your wishes, yet each of you tries to shift blame for these confrontations to me alone, and I reject that. Xizor is as much to blame here as I am if not moreso, and if nobody else stands up for rules being followed, I will. Sorry but that's just me. I am always willing to compromise, but I will not be disrespected and I will not bow to someone like a king when they aren't really a king. And all I ask is this in future: if you have a problem with any page that's being worked, including length or placement of material, SPEAK WHEN ASKED, not 3 or 6 months down the road, it makes the issues look petty if you don't at least let us know about this when we're developing the pages. I distinctly asked if there were any further issues that any of you had with this page and others, and none of you answer very often, and then you come up 3 or 6 months down the road and are all of a sudden worried about length. Speak up when you're asked at the time and maybe we could avoid more of these little debacles. To me, this length business seems petty seeing as it's been that way for months now and nobody's said a word, and I showed each of you a real oversized article that none of ours here even touches. Bottom line: don't wait 6 months and all of a sudden act shocked at things like this, it makes the credibility of the issue seem petty. Link87 22:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We have a lot to tend to as a staff of this wiki, so no, we can't always "speak when asked". We have other priorities, including priorities at ZW itself, and we get to things when we get to them. Just because you ask us and we don't respond doesn't make any difference when we do respond 3 to 6 months later. It just means we finally have time to look at the page and issues and further deal with them. The thing, the fact you think you have the right to demand responses from us at a certain time is a bit pompous. I am not saying we as staff don't act that way at times: I am most guilty of it when it comes to anyone on ZW, however, we can't always respond right away, and yes sometiems it takes months because we as a staff actually discuss the issues at length before making any actions, and sometimes this takes months to go through the process. I only ask that you have the same patience with us that we show to you, or any other member. Were not perfect, and we work as fast as we can. Nathanial Rumphol-Janc 23:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nathan, I mean you no offense, but here's the thing:
 * The size is down around 35,000/36,000 bytes, and not a word of what I've written is fanon, we'll have to agree to disagree there. I take offense at that, b/c if it was fanon I would no write it. I merely mention possibilities noted by others and mention that it's not confirmed, so I think that accusation is invalid. There's more to know about the Sheikah as a race (and others for that matter) than what you give it credit for. And this is just my personal opinion, but I think the staff should focus more on "building" the wiki, not cutting it down, especially when we've got well over 100 articles with the "improvement" label atop them. And forgive me for saying this, but if that was so about the labels at the top and the staff only being able to take them down, it'd never get done at the rate that things have been going, it took 3 months just for you to realize this page was a bit longer than others. I think you could cut some slack and focus energies in places where it's most needed. I wouldn't be so concerned about having "too much" information on pages here, not when you have countless others in need of having "more" added to them. This is not to be disrespectful, but I seriously question the focus of energies. I understand you have a lot of responsibilities, but how much does it take to answer a simple question? Not much at all. And you can't tell me you haven't seen this page in 3 months, I just don't believe that. That requires a suspension of disbelief. I'm sorry if it comes across somewhat negatively, but it's true. I believe you when you say you have a lot to do, but not so much that it takes 12 weeks to look at a page and say yea or nay on. Link87 23:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as far as I see it, your verbose writing style, Chris, contributes to the mix as well. There's nothing wrong with writing smaller, more concise sentences! =) I feel with such a lengthy writing technique it almost encourages pages to end up so large in the first place. That's all I'm saying, as I wish not to get involved, but to look at the issue from a different angle. 03:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The page has been protected because once again the Size Template was removed by a non-Staff member. I will do with this page as I see fit if the size is unacceptable compared to the content. Thank you for getting it down to about 36k bytes, but you blatantly challenged me by removing the template. I will not be baited.

Also, I, along with the other Bureaucrats, do own this Wiki. It is a part of my website. If you don't subscribe to that, nobody is forcing you to be here. You are obviously here because you get some sort of enjoyment out of writing about the Legend of Zelda series and interacting with other fans. Stop butting heads with the staff because frankly, none of us care anymore, and I'm the one who volunteered to roll out the guns. I'm not acting in a rogue manner, and I'm not out of line. This is one person carrying out the will of many. That's about all I have to say about this page. See you at the next one. --Xizor 06:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Chris, I'd just like to pick up on your most recent point, by responding to the somewhat impudent (rhetorical?) question you posed:
 * "...how much does it take to answer a simple question?"
 * At its longest, this article reached a total of 7321 words of prose; I think we can all agree that's a lot of text for any one person to digest in its entirety, in order to form a reasoned opinion of the merit of its content. You may also be interested to know that, so far within this discussion section, you've bombarded us with a total of 2131 words. My point is that, after reading a certain amount of text most people simply switch off. The reason we ask you to focus on reducing volume is precisely to avoid this loss of reader interest, which is clearly something that bothers you judging by your displeasure at your comments and questions being ignored.
 * You may be surprised how much better a response you'd get to your article and talk page contributions simply by being more concise and avoiding repetition. This is meant as friendly advise, but I'll understand if you take it as unfair or unreasonable criticism. 13:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't subscribe to a 17-year-old not even out of high school owning entire websites Xizor, nor do I believe you are that great of a leader that you avoid trouble. By your own admission you know little about Zelda, you are just here to try to exercise your ego over others obviously, and you're not impressing me one bit. Get over your ego and learn to do some constructive things rather than destructive and maybe you'll get better responses to your behavior. You're not God, and I'm not going to treat you like God, I'm going to treat you as I would anyone else, and right now your behavior will find no good response from me. Lock all the pages you want, b/c you're just making a fool out of yourself on this "oversize" binge, it shows an extreme lack of maturity. And to be perfectly honest, I have little faith in endorsing someone so blatantly immature to run wild and do as he pleases in an organization like this. You're exactly right, I don't have to be here, and I may choose not to be around all that much in future b/c I do not believe a 17 year old will execute mature or competent leadership, which you've proven to me more than once I'm afraid.


 * Adam, I understand what you say, but as I said on the other page, I'm to the point that I no longer care about what you guys do with the pages. They were designed to help better the wiki b/c there was nothing before I initiated their overhauls. If Xizor, who does not know Zelda all that well by his own admission, thinks he can rip the articles apart when he likely isn't the best person to determine which information should stay or go, more power to him, it's no skin off my back. I have far more important things to worry about, such as exams coming up that are going to be truly difficult in the coming week, than trying to appease an egotistical bureaucrat that can't see how foolish he makes himself. If all of you feel you wish him to do whatever he pleases, go ahead, I'm beyond caring. I'm not going out of my way for this place any more though, the time for that has passed. Link87 20:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm 18 years old, I operate in many leadership capacities in my life, and I don't really care what you think of my leadership qualities or my actions here. Also, my own admission was that there are others more knowledgeable about Zelda than I, not that I myself am unknowledgeable. You twist reality to suit your purpose. You may continue twisting, but just know that you are not twisting my arm, and I don't really foresee you doing anything to stymie my efforts, because I am not alone, and I have a directive to back me up. I will no longer be discussing your petty accusations. From here on, anything you say that isn't related to the page matters at hand I will simply ignore, and only reply to the legitimate portions. If you should have no legitimate portions, you will be entirely ignored. --Xizor 21:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)