User talk:Yuvorias@legacy41958105

Hi there. I thought I'd discuss your recent reversion of my changes to Beth Poe and Joelle Poe, since we seem to be unable to agree on the age order of these two! I think you'll agree it's fairly indisputable that the four Poe Sisters are a direct reference to the four sisters present in Little Women (Jo, Meg, Beth, and Amy). I realise that Tatl's description of the ages of Beth and Jo is a little ambiguous, but I can't really see why their order of age would be switched around from the characters in Little Women, can you? I must say that I've never read the book, so I'm making the assumption that wikipedia has their ages correct (HERE) ; please let me know if you have any reason to believe otherwise, if not I'll correct the info in the articles. Thanks --Adam (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Poe Sisters
Just in case you didn't spot my reply in your talk, I'll stick it here too: I've got Little Women, and I will consult it, and list their ages accordingly. The next time they are changed, they will be what the book said. If they are not changed by the 19th January (18th in America), 10:00am, then they are the correct ages.

Regarding thems manga books
Hey, just thought I'd let you know that Viz is bringing one of the Zelda manga over to America. No word on Australia, but if it's coming to America, then maybe there's hope? Although, technically, anyone wanting an English copy of the manga could just order it from Right Stuf when it comes out... in October. --Ando (T : C) 20:12, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Cool
Thanks for adding the master sword in there! You're right, since the pedestal of time was nominated this should be too! Good idea! :) --David (T : C) 19:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it'll do good, we may have to wait for next month when everyone gets their votes back :) --David (T : C) 11:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, i hope its received well! Friends? --David (T : C) 11:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Good Idea :) --David (T : C) 11:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Image(s) uploaded
Hi! Thank you for the new image(s) you recently uploaded; the wiki appreciates your contributions! We've recently introduced a policy of crediting the original source of any images used here, so we ask that you please take a moment to let everyone know where your images came from using the various templates here. For more information, see this explanation, and any questions you may have will be answered by the staff here. Thanks for your help! —Adam (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow
Wow! Man, you're amazing! I'm seeing your name practically plastered on the Recent Changes! Anyway, if you see any talk pages there (which you shouldn't, since me and Adam did a mass cleanup of those in the Wanted Pages not to long ago using the template i made), be sure to use the template! :)--David (T : C) 11:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) --David (T : C) 12:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, after you use the template, you don't have to say you usedit in the summary box! It'll probably say: New Page: No clog --David (T : C) 14:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, ill start helping! --David (T : C) 14:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering,whatstate do you live in? --David (T : C) 14:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's actually morning here! Night! --David (T : C) 14:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh... I think you've really misunderstood the purpose of this template. If you read the text, it states:

This template was placed here to keep the User/Article's Talk Page from clogging the Wanted Pages

When an article has a template such as or  added to it, an automatic link to that article's talk page is created. For pages which have no talk page, this becomes a red link and appears in the Wanted Pages list, hence "clog". Yesterday, I added this template to around 40 such talk pages which appeared in wanted pages, effectively solving the problem. What you seem to have used it for is any talk page which doesn't currently exist, but for articles which don't contain any talk-page-linking templates and therefore have no need for a "noclog"! I'm now going to spend ( read: waste ) some time marking all of these edits as good, but please don't do any more as this is not the correct use for this template! Sorry if I sound angry and/or long winded... —Adam (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)