User talk:Midoro


 * Archive 1



You deleted all of my work :(
Dude... I stayed up all night last night (a week or two ago) updating the wiki and creating wanted pages to help everyone out, and instead of a thank you most of my hard work was deleted :(

2 of the 3 "wanted pages" I made got deleted. One of them being Lorulean Knights, wich was understandably merged with Lorule Soldiers... but you cut out everything I wrote on that page. Could you at least preserve the information I spent time to put on that page when you merged it? It wasn't arbitrary stuff. And the Ghost Soldiers page didn't need to be deleted. I think that the ghost variant of soldiers that appear in Twilight Princess (wich are the same as the Hyrule Warriors ones as they are both ghosts of deceased Hyrule Soldiers) was a needed page.

I spent hours and effort making those pages, and within seconds and no effort you deleted them.

I can understand you deleting my stuff if it was vandalism (which it most definitely was not), if it was inaccurate (all the things I posted were accurate to their respective games, look at them again if you don't believe me). But my work was legit. The only reason I see you deleted my stuff is because you felt it was all arbitrary but I have to disagree, I feel alot of people would find my info useful and I helped the Zelda Wiki Comunity out by making "wanted pages".

Kinda hurts :(

I'd appreciate if you could restore some of my hard work so I don't have to feel like I wasted 5 hours of my life staying up late and trying to be a helpful community member. I understand you had to merge Lorule Knights and Soldiers, but at least keep most of my original article present in that merge.

And a 'thank you' once in a while would be nice... :(

Editorguy117 (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all, please do not comment back on my talk page archive. That's supposed to be an archive for old talk page messages. Please respond back on this page.


 * I understand that you're disheartened by the changes. But also keep in mind that this wiki strives for quality work. What I merely did with those edits was to rework them to be more up to date with the wiki's quality standards and kept what would be useful for the wiki. I admit that some edits and pages were removed, but only because they were deemed unnecessary for the wiki. But most of your edits are still technically there, they were not removed. Merely they were updated. If I wanted to actually remove entire changes, I would have undid the edits.


 * Again, I know you're disheartened by all this. But please also understand that this is the nature of how all wikis work. All pages on the wiki are subjected to change and removal of sections, or sometimes even entire pages. Believe me, I've had work done before in other wikis that would be drastically changed or removed as well. -The Goron Moron (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Pakkun
KrytenKoro (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * For god sake. All I did was ask you to please WAIT for my sandbox work to be FINISHED. Because it obviously wasn't. That was why I reverted it. There is no need to take this all personally. -The Goron Moron (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Just as a notice, since you've posted your version I went ahead and corrected some stuff that was from unreliable sources -- the Zelda Amiibo thing has been debunked by KT, and whatever translation of Aonuma's post that said the TP pack would have multiple weapons is incorrect, as the official site specifies only one. I just wanted to make it clear that this isn't meant to be an attack on you, as I realize now that I could have used a more polite tone in my edit comments.KrytenKoro (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * the new weapon -could- be zeldas, tho, since there will be a new weapon type, its just not gonna be amiibo based.KrytenKoro (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Eh there's also the Zelda facebook page. But I guess it's just better to wait for the pack to come out. -The Goron Moron (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that too. Based on the way they worded it, it seems more likely it's the "1 new weapon" that zelda.com talks about -- that might even explain why people thought the Zelda amiibo gave the weapon.KrytenKoro (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It says "a new weapon for Zelda". That implies she will be getting a new weapon. -The Goron Moron (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, yes, right, that's what I'm saying. It's possible that whoever thought the zelda amiibo gave a unique weapon heard about the new weapon for zelda, and thought they were the same, is what I'm saying. Basically, I agree with you.KrytenKoro (talk) 05:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That Facebook is the official Zelda Facebook page, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't mix that up. The wording, again "for", suggests that this would be a type of weapon for Zelda the character. But it's whatever, it's just better to wait for the actual patch. -The Goron Moron (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait. Saw this this, pretty sure Zelda is getting a new weapon. -The Goron Moron (talk) 07:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm not arguing with you, I'm not disputing the facebook page. I'm saying that it's possible the fansites that reported about the zelda amiibo may have heard fragments of the Dominion Rod thing, and got it confused with the info that the Zelda amiibo would unlock a weapon -- not catching that the amiibo unlocks a random weapon. All I was trying to say is that, yeah, as you just saw, just because the zelda amiibo thing was debunked doesn't mean Zelda's not getting a new weapon, since it could be part of the vanilla DLC. Just trying to mend bridges here and clear things up.KrytenKoro (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Minor Edit on "The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask 3D" from December 3, 2014
[Your message] ".... Great Britain is part of Europe. And I've heard no word of it coming out in America too?"


 * I have been discussing it with a few friends lately who're usually always up-to-date with stuff like this. It hasn't been announced yet, but from what we know, it's very likely to happen. I'll be looking for further information to see what I can find. I'll be sure to let you know if we find out anything else.

-- 18:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Unless there is official word regarding an American release, then there is no reason to assume that it will happen. -The Goron Moron (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Wizzro
I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't trying to tell the guy that he was wrong, just that the way he went about it (telling us we can't put up a claim because gfaqs disagrees with it) wasn't really valid, especially since we already had started a community discussion about it. I hope that wasn't the wrong thing to say?KrytenKoro (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not so much about the debate. When I look at the Wizzro costume, honestly, there is nothing about Freezard that even vaguely comes to mind other than they're both white, and I'm a bit surprised that some people even came to that conclusion. It's much more obviously intended to bare a resemblance to the TP Big Poes. Wizzro's hands and eye are even blue in that, much like the Big Poes. But even then, people are getting a little too caught up over what the costumes /might/ be based on, and in the end, it doesn't really matter. That is why I reverted it. It barely resembles Freezard, and it shouldn't be considered as one. -The Goron Moron (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Vandal
Linkfan101 has been vandalizing the Hyrule Warriors page with disingenuous edit comments, indicating that they know what they are doing rather than it being an accident or first experience with a wiki. One of their edits was clearly trolling.KrytenKoro (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. He's been already blocked. -The Goron Moron (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit War
Based on your post on Ixbran's page, I'm not sure we communicated what actually happened correctly.


 * 1) Ixbran posted the element sourcing a video (which was eventually discovered to be a bad source)
 * 2) Other editors came in and removed the element without providing sources
 * 3) I reverted them as Ixbran had provided a source, and asked them for a source
 * 4) An edit war occurred between me and these other editors (with me ceasing to edit to avoid exacerbating the edit war any further on my part).
 * The other editors provided a source demonstrating that the source Ixbran had used was unreliable.

I want to make it very clear, for the record, that Ixbran did not edit war about Tingle's element. His involvement was only in using an unreliable source, and the only reason I'm mentioning the edit war at all was because it resulted after that unreliable source was used. Ixbran absolutely did not violate the edit war policies. I personally approached edit warring, although I believe I made sure to stop editing when it became clear that conflict was occuring. Does this clarify things?KrytenKoro (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I wasn't just talking about the edit war over Tingle, but other occasions as well. Either way, I do not wish to see further edit wars between any parties, and I would rather that the both of you stop arguing. But I thank you for the clarification. 23:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Big Poes
I know for a fact that in Ocarina of Time 3D, they spawn on foot. It is a 30% chance, but I have caught 4 Big Poes on foot, it is not a bug. It is well documented on GameFAQs and elsewhere that they do, in fact, spawn on foot. It takes numerous attempts at moving by the spawn point (and ignoring the regular Poes), but eventually a Big Poe will appear. Once again, this is not a bug, but a documented fact.--I'm just a plain ol' Goron...Darth Nightmaricus (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's possible to spawn them that way, however I believe as the intention is for them to be hunted on horseback, I would still consider this to be a bug, and glitches aren't really intended to be mentioned in the main body. I have hunted Big Poes before in OoT3D, and I haven't been able to get them to spawn unless I was on horseback. At most this would need further verification before anything could be done with it. 04:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Want me to take a screenshot of a Big Poe while on foot? That might help. It's clearly not a bug, it just takes trial and error. --I'm just a plain ol' Goron...Darth Nightmaricus (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe you when you say it's possible to exploit. However I do not believe this to be intentionally programmed in the game. It just sounds like a bug that has a chance of occurring through 'tricking'. Also, please try not to repeatedly revert edits if you disagree with something. This would be considered edit warring, which we do not allow on the wiki. 04:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well it's not an exploit. It's happened since the original Ocarina of Time. Most bugs have been fixed between the two versions. However, it isn't an exploit. It's deliberately programmed in. There's no "trick" to it: you just keep passing the spot and hope for it to spawn instead of a regular poe. I just caught the one near the stream by Kakariko Village, actually. That makes 6 Big Poes that I have been able to catch on foot. --I'm just a plain ol' Goron...Darth Nightmaricus (talk) 04:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Mainspacing my Great Fairy articles.
Are my sandbox articles on the different Great Fairies up to standard enough that they can be mainspaced? If not, can you help me bring them up to standard? -I'm just a plain ol' Goron...Darth Nightmaricus (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I apologize, but splitting the Great Fairy page is just not going to happen. Nobody agreed that the page should be split, and even then it is incredibly unnecessary to do so. Unlike the Skull Kid character from MM, the Great Fairies are not as notable as individuals, and to split them would mean a lot of needless pages that would force our readers to flip through more pages just to find one thing. It gets in the way of reader-friendliness and accessibility, which is also why people have been opposed to splitting Skull Kid. (More people are likely to search for "Skull Kid", not "Skull Kid (Character)".) With the exception of a very few, nearly all of the Great Fairies are just called that. "Great Fairy". I'm again sorry, but splitting the page is not going happen.


 * This is also why I suggest that you take split/merge proposals into the article's talk page first, and then determine if everyone thinks it is necessary before going ahead and making sandboxes for it. It would save you and everyone else a lot of time. 00:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I think I'll leave them as tests or in case we ever DO decide to split them. Most of my sandboxes are like that. They're free for anyone to edit, actually, I don't mind if people do that. What do you think of my Majora article?--I'm just a plain ol' Goron...Darth Nightmaricus (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well for starters, I can tell you that Majora's Mask (Object) is also not going to be split, as we barely know anything about the entity itself as the game never fully elaborated on it. I already mentioned this on the forums. And again it also falls under the issue of reader-friendliness and accessibility. To have two separate pages on them would make things harder for users to find.


 * Aside from that, it is structured very similarly to our mainspaced pages. I will say though that you shouldn't be calling the Moon Child wearing the mask as part of the same entity. It's not stated in-game that the Moon Child is a form of Majora. That would be a theory, and we're taking those out of the wiki. That's also part of the reason why Majora's Mask shouldn't be split, as anything else that could be determined about the entity would just be theory. 00:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Most readers who are searching for Skull Kid are probably looking for the character, not the species, in that case, and Majora the entity is probably going to be searched for more often than the mask in certain scenarios. --I'm just a plain ol' Goron...Darth Nightmaricus (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Most people looking for Skull Kid the character would just type in "Skull Kid" into the search box. Their first instinct would not be to type in "Skull Kid (Character)", especially if they don't know a page had been split.


 * At any rate, my talk page is not for debate over this. 01:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

My apologies about AST and BSLoZ.
I didn't know that the consensus was non-canon. I kinda figured the only reason it wasn't in the Hyrule Historia was because without emulation, there is no legal way to play it, hence Nintendo didn't include it. If both had gotten Virtual Console releases prior to HH's release, they'd probably be in the timeline. But I guess you're right - if HH doesn't mention it, that may mean it's non-canon. --I'm just a plain ol' Goron...Darth Nightmaricus (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually I may have been wrong about the consensus about whether they are ambiguously canon or non-canon. I personally don't consider them canon. At any rate, I've already warned you to stop reverting edits in the way you have and to stop responding rudely to the staff.  23:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be rude. I kinda feel that the ambig route is the way to go - Canon people can say "That means it's canon", while the people who think it isn't canon can say "That means it isn't canon" - both interpretations would be valid. It'd be neutral ground, and it'd probably stop a lot of disputes. --I'm just a plain ol' Goron...Darth Nightmaricus (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Telling someone they only see in black or white after a disagreement is rude. 23:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * My apologies, and the dungeons in AST being the same as the ones in ALttP is not true - I have actually played both games, and the dungeons are not the same. They have different layouts, so it makes sense for them to be split. --I'm just a plain ol' Goron...Darth Nightmaricus (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The Second Quest dungeons in TLoZ also have different layouts and yet still share the same page. Not everything has to be made into its own page. The locations are still identical to those in ALttP, just as the levels in BS TLoZ are still the same as the original TLoZ. If people want to look for these things, they would go to the main article. There is more sense to keeping them there. The only reason we split things (like the Hyrule Warriors stages) is if there is a lot of information that warrants its own page. 02:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Uh, the BSTLoZ levels are very different. Bosses changed, items moved, locations moved. It's like comparing the Desert Palace in ALttP to the one in ALBW - they're similar in some ways, but different in others. --I'm just a plain ol' Goron...Darth Nightmaricus (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I know.
 * Second Quest also had the exact same things you just described. Bosses changed, items moved, locations moved, so on. BS TLoZ is essentially a "third quest". And despite all of the changes Second Quest has, it still shares the same page and is very doable with the rest. Again, not all subjects need their own pages. Please try to understand and respect this. There's reasons the wiki is set up this way. 03:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But can you not merge the dungeon pages, considering I poured a lot of energy into them? The Second Quest is still part of the original game, while BSLoZ is a different game entirely and has a slightly different plot.--I'm just a plain ol' Goron...Darth Nightmaricus (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Merging would not mean deleting your work. It would just mean putting your work into a section of a page. It does not have to be rewritten. And no, BSTLoZ and AST are still incredibly similar to the original games. 04:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Why you did remove the changes in the article Hyrule Warriors and protect it?
Hello The Goron Moron, why you did remove so much official information in the article Hyrule Warriors? And why you have protect the article so sternly now? The information about the 3DS port with the Japanese title (ゼルダ無双 ハイラルオールスターズ) Zelda Musō: Hyrule All-Stars, is official announced by Koei Tecmo their selves. Times are changing, and we have to keep that.

You even removed my changing from Enemy Characters to Villain Characters. I played the game by myself, and I still have it. The issue between ally- and enemy characters in the game is a is a case that depends from the side that you played on that moment in the game, the same is by the units. By the good characters / units does word hero adjusts the best, the same is does by the word villain for the bad characters / units.

Do you understand my points, The Goron Moron? Tim Auke Kools (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Because of policy. This is to respect Nintendo and Koei Tecmo. The game was not officially revealed yet, but was accidentally leaked. The pages will be restored when the game is officially unveiled as intended. These things technically should not have been on the wiki this early.


 * I can, however, edit HW to change Enemy Characters to Villain Characters. The HW page was also protected so that people won't add leaked information there. This is all precautionary. 16:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh. So the information about the 3DS port was not completely official yet. Then I understand. But I hope that there will come a day that I and other users can make edits on the article again. And thank you for your last edit in the article, The Goron Moron. Now I feel that the article is perfect for now. Tim Auke Kools (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * As I said, the page and edits will be restored once the game is officially revealed. The pages will be unprotected then and all users will be able to edit them again. Thank you for understanding. 20:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Tri Force Heroes title image
Hey, do you think it'd be ok to change the image on the front page (File:TFH_Tile.png) to something like this, with the background and all? I mean, what I have is not an exact replica since I couldn't replicate the zoom exactly, but I hope I get my point across. -- Zero-ELEC (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I personally don't mind. I was meaning to change it myself actually, but if you already got the updated tile made, then I don't see why not. 02:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, then I'm going to go ahead and upload the updated image (I managed to get the zoom more accurate); thanks for the quick response! -- Zero-ELEC (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Guardian of Time
I completely understand the reasons why the Guardian of Time page was unnecessary for it would be unreasonable for the Sorceress’s background story to appear on multiple pages. Though I have one thought: the page Guardian of Time should be completely deleted, and add it to the Guardian (disambiguaition). If you think that would improve the wiki, please go ahead. AwfulFatso (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)AwfulFatso


 * Guardian of Time is fine as a disambiguation page though. There's been a lot of confusion regarding Cia's and Lana's previous being, so I don't think having the page would hurt as a means of clarifying. 01:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Assuring your Approval
Just to be sure before publishing my edit (since it is a theory of some sort followed by some evidence), can the Sorceress of Light enhance her sorcery?

An example would be in the cutscene after the battle of the tree monster in Valley of Seers. When Cia disrupted space and time, Lana gathered her troops and tossed her Tome within the air, followed by a spell (the shield barrier) which looks beyond her normal attacks?

Sorry – I just realized I am asking you two questions: Should I publish the question I asked above and can Lana advance her magic? Thank you.AwfulFatso (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)AwfulFatso


 * I'm not exactly sure what it is you're suggesting with their sorcery. But I'm afraid we no longer accept theories on the wiki anymore. We used to allow that, but that's changed now and we have slowly been removing them. They're too speculative and generally not factual, so that's why we no longer have them. You're welcome to share your theory on the theorizing board on the ZU forums though. 00:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)