User talk:Ganondorfdude11

Imprisoning War
Your work on the Imprisoning War page is very commendable. Great job on all you've done with it. 02:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Episode Titles
You can pipe link all of them and it will save time when creating each episode's article. The pipe links will show up red and place it in the Wanted Pages, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Great work on the page. I'll point it out to someone to get a template made for the information such as the writer and voice actors, etc. 06:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got a short set of reviews of the Zelda cartoon up at everything2.com if you want to reference that for any details. Might be some handy information in there. --Rootbeer277 14:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:About the edit war
That is fine man, I accept the apology and also apologize for any confusion or mistrust that has been caused. I agree with your idea to the detail, and that was what I was trying to suggest last night. I am very glad you have come back to the table and am very glad we have reached agreement. Perhaps we can work together on it to make it to what you described. I'd be very happy to help if I can. As far as citing sources, I am unsure about the coding required for it, since I was never very good with programming. Perhaps you can help me there. And I in turn can help you as well to craft the sections and bring the article up to speed as you said. For the record, I also agree this encyclopedia is far more credible than the other one, but in a respectful way. I can see that they may have different standards than we do, but they too love the series just as much as we do. I may not agree with all that they do, as I do believe we have a good policy and a good operation here, but as I said, I just live and let live. But I do agree with you that we have a more credible operation here and that we have good policies and a wonderful alliance with other sites, something that can't be said for the other wiki it seems. But they are entitled to their own standards if they like, even if we may not agree with their policies aesthetically. I appreciate your understanding and willingness to work together though, and I look forward to helping in the effort to improve not just the Great Cataclysm but others alongside you as well. Link87 16:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits
I've noticed that you seem to make multiple edits to the same pages. I wanted to tell you that instead of submitting your work every time you add information/correct something, you can simply press the show preview button. This will allow you to preview your work before submitting it. Which results in less edits and also keeps the page histories clean. 18:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The edits of the same page, a few minutes apart, and for the most part small (<1000) get annoying. If you can use the "Show Preview" button or even go to your preferences and click the box to show the preview automatically. 03:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hyrule
Hey Ganondorfdude11, I saw you were helping with the work on the Hyrule article, and I thought I would ask perhaps if you would like to continue to help out with the restructuring of the article perhaps? I have been trying to restructure it to better meet standards for the wiki as well as look more organized, and you are one of the few that has shown interest in helping to put the meat on the bones of the article. An article like this is nearly overwhelming for one person to do alone, so I thought I would ask if you would be interested in continuing work on it and to collaborate with me and others working on it to get the article done in as quick and efficient a manner as possible. Any help would be greatly appreciated with it. And I hope you don't take offense at me replacing what you wrote on the sections about the appearances, I just wanted to make them more detailed about the plot of the games and the implications each has for Hyrule in those games, as was suggested to me by a couple of the admins in their vision for the article. If you could help add even more to what you wrote in some of those or in any of the other sections, it would be greatly appreciated. I'm just glad someone else is showing interest in helping. ;) Link87 18:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. I added the "wars' section underneath the history section and am trying to flesh out the "appearances by game" section. I style of writing seems a bit more lacoic than yours, I tend to just state the important stuff and leave it at that. Maybe you could say something about the plot of each game in the "Appearances by game" section?Ganondorfdude11 18:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I'm trying to do, add the plots of the games and the parts that affect or involve Hyrule at large in them in the Appearances by Game section that you created. So yes, that's precisely what I had in mind as well. One area you could probably be of great help on is the Races section too, since those are more just facts about the races and how they've changed throughout Hyrule's history. We can also expand upon the section regarding wars and invasions as you suggested as well, so that is a good idea. Link87 18:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like somebody went and wiped the entire "appearances by game section" because it was "unnecessary plot summary."Ganondorfdude11 22:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's because it was. The majority of it was useless game synopsis. If you want to add those sections back, please refrain from making it a 40k kb page with 12 different game summaries. Maybe describe how Hyrule has changed with each game, but that should be it - they do not need to be large, cumbersome sections with copious amounts of information. -- Xizor 22:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually Xizor, I've had other admins (Dany and Axiomist to name a few) that actually want more detail in the history or appearance sections of the article. I was asked to expand upon the stories and how they affect Hyrule in the appearances section, so please let us continue work on things uninterrupted and we can cut things everyone thinks is too much when we're done. This has been a lot of work for those of us that have been trying to work on the article, and seeing that none of the admins that have been here for over a year did anything with this article in all this time, that doesn't leave much room for criticism toward those of us that are trying to improve it "as we see fit", like the label says. Link87 00:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds acceptable to me, I'm going to just mark things as patrolled and not touch anything until the two of you independently tell me or other staff members that you are done. At this point some trimming will likely take place. The many readers have been finding redundancies and I'll get them to hold off on the whole thing bc the wiki loses when tempers flare up. 01:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I told Christopher, there were many of us who thought the article was bulky and that the entire section should be removed - it was not an independent decision on my part. As I also told Christopher, I'll hold off on reducing it again, but if the article only continues to get larger and larger, then that's not the point. Do not summarize each game - mention why it affects Hyrule, but after that, we don't need to know the story of each game. That's what the pages about each game are for. --Xizor 10:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And as I told you, I understand what you're saying and we will certainly take that into account and we will edit out what we don't need when we are done. It's better to start out with too much than not enough. You just took it upon yourself to wipe out all that we'd done, and that's not right either. Just because you're an admin doesn't give you the unilateral right to just wipe out an entire section of an article simply because you think it's too long. You could easily have just let one of us know and we could have told you we weren't yet done with it, it's a work in progress. It's amazing that all of a sudden, you're saying something about an article that's been sitting dormant for over a year, and I have seen no attempt on your part to do anything about it up to this point. To criticize those of us that are actually trying to get the job done smacks of hypocrisy. Ganondorfdude11 and I have been trying to deal with a mammoth of an article, with no thanks to you or some of the others that tried to verbally attack me a week ago but backed off when they were told they could do it themselves. Have they done anything as far as helping the article move along?? No. Have you Xizor, beyond wiping out the work we'd done so far and complaining like those others? No, of course not. I understand that you want it to be good quality, and it will be when we are done I can assure you, but you can't rush us on this, this is a mammoth article that's not going to be done just 1, 2, 3. Any help is greatly appreciated, it's a lot for just two people to deal with in a topic this large. But complaints and actions like those you took prematurely just get in the way. All you have to do is talk to us, we're not going to bite. If you'd like to help in some of the writing of the article, it would be greatly appreciated, but what we don't need are road blocks and whining. Link87 13:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hyrulean/Hyrulean
Hey Ganondorfdude11, sorry to make this seem like an edit war, but the community's general consensus has been that the proper spelling is "Hyrulean" as was stated in the FSA game. In TP, the term was considered misspelled in translation from Japanese. Please understand we are trying to remain consistent with what the community already has come to accept. This is not personal, just about consistency. Link87 18:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, this is a deal to minor to get into an argument about. I'll accept that both spellings are correct. but if the community's decided on one, then we should use it.Ganondorfdude11 18:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, both are typically correct and mean the same thing to me personally, but for the purposes of the general community and for consistency, I think we ought to stick with what has already become the accepted standard. It cuts down on confusion that way. Link87 18:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Off topic, but I just wanted to say I am very pleased with the picture you chose for the main picture of the Hyrule article, very nice choice indeed! :) Link87 21:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Light Force widget
Hey Ganondorfdude11, I have a question for you. Do you know perhaps where we could get the small game widget of the Light Force that is seen on the game menu for a completed file for The Minish Cap?? It may not be called "widget", but it's the in-game form of a character or item, I forget what the proper term for it is, but do you know what I'm talking about?? It's the little golden triangle that appears beside the Four Sword on the file menu whenever you complete a file for the game. If you do, do you think you could find a copy of that which we can put beside the "Description" section of the article?? I'd be grateful, b/c I'm not sure where to get those things. I can search for images, but I'm not sure what those in-game things are. Link87 19:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to get one of those. Maybe you can search for a screenshot of a completed file and crop it?Ganondorfdude11
 * That's true, I'll try that if I can find an image of the file menu, I can crop it. I'll try to find a picture of it if I can.


 * P.S. I'll be back to help you on Hyrule soon too, I just saw this article earlier this morning and thought I could do a rewrite for it fairly quickly since it appears in only one game. Link87 19:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Next Hyrule
Ganondorfdude11, I know we may be at odds about some things, but surely we can work out a compromise here. I have rewwritten the section to reflect that while it's not for sure to be called Hyrule, there is a possibility that it "may" be called Hyrule b/c Zelda makes clear that's what she intends to do. Never once does the King state that they should not name the new land Hyrule, he merely says that the new land will not be the Hyrule he is bound to. He was trying to explain why he could not go with them, nothing more. Please be reasonable here, b/c you're asserting something that is taken out of context. I'm willing to concede that it's not certain that it will be called Hyrule, but it's not unreasonable to state the possibility that it "may" be called Hyrule either. I would hope you would be willing to compromise here, b/c we're each giving a little to reach common ground. Link87 22:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The proper compromise would be to not assume that the new land is Hyrule. The current version of the page just says that they will go to find a new land, which is stated in the ending. Your interpretation disregards context. The king was the one who made the wish, and Zelda was misinterpreting him. He does not say that the land may be called Hyrule, he says that it will not be Hyrule. He refuses Zelda's suggestion to make another Hyrule outright. Axiomist is of the same opinion. To assume that the new land is Hyrule is presumptive and does not fit with the intention of TWW's ending. The very idea of a new Hyrule is rejected by the king, so why would Tetra disregard the king's wishes?Ganondorfdude11 23:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll just point out that Zelda no more suggested "Hyrule as a name than the King denied that as a name. She said they'd find the New Hyrule, not that the new land they find will be called Hyrule. 23:15, August 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the conversation in context:
 * Zelda:W-Wait! You could... You could come with us! Yes, of course... We have a ship! We can find it. We WILL find it! The land that will be the next Hyrule!
 * King:Ah, but child... That land will not be Hyrule. It will be YOUR land!

The context indicates that the old kingdom is dead, and that the new kingdom will not be Hyrule. The idea of a new Hyrule is rejected outright.Ganondorfdude11 23:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While I disagree with the above statement in that there could very well be a new land named Hyrule, I just wanted to say I am pleased with the way the section reads now. It does not appear to take sides at all, and it mentions that though Zelda stated they would find a new Hyrule, Daphnes told them that it would be their own land and not the original Hyrule his spirit was bound to. So good job on the writing, but always try to keep an open mind buddy. If there's anything we should have learned by this point, it's that anything is possible in this series. ;) Link87 14:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

TetraForce Link
That link was there, bc it's the only article we are going to allow for the noncanonical 4th Goddess theory. You can make it take a more neutral stance between having a Goddess of Time and Fourth Triforce, if you feel it's slants that way too much. But one article is sufficient. 05:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. I was under the impression that the Fourth Goddess theory was that the Goddess of Time was merely a separate entity, and not necessarily the goddess of a fourth Triforce. I thought the Fourth Goddess idea was that she was like Zephos and Cyclos, a minor deity who only controlled time and didn't have her own Triforce piece. Ganondorfdude11 15:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Uploading Images
Hey there. I noticed you uploaded a few images to the Wiki recently. Thanks for your contributions, but I notice you were doing something slightly wrong. You were not selecting any option from the Licensing drop-down. When you upload, please just select 'All Copyrighted images' if it is an image that is in fact copyrighted. All officially released materials, or even slightly modified or altered images fall under this grouping. Mases 17:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Agahnim
Hey, thanks for all of those references you added to Agahnim's page. It really needed to be done. Great job. :) 23:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk Pages
One thing to keep in mind after merging is to move the discussion content to the new page. There's really no reason to have a discussion on a redirect page. 03:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Time Out
Ganondorfdude11, I appreciate your help on the Hyrule page very much. However, some of your actions are inconsistent with the construction of the page thus far, and despite my constant requests that you conform to the basic structure we have adopted for it, you continue to disregard what I have been trying to tell you. Please, for the sake of the article at least, quit putting unofficial pictures into the article and please quit removing text that I have put in for a specific reason. You fail to realize that there are several different forests in the games, not just one or two. Let's please start working in unison and not work against each other. Link87 05:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The similarities between the forests do not need to be mentioned under every section. The similarities between Sacred Grove and the Lost Woods are already noted under the Sacred Grove section, and the Faron Woods section. Noting them under the Lost Woods section is just padding, and redundant. As for the image, it is not unofficial in the slightest. It comes from the official European guide to A Link to the Past, and is official art produced by Nintendo. It's a far better image than the picture of the Master Sword, which only shows up in the Lost Woods in ALttP and TP. Ganondorfdude11 05:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ganondorfdude11, European art is not in any official guide, manual or game material. We go by images that are from the guides and are considered official here. And I beg to differ, the picture up now shows the details of the Lost Woods far better than the water-coloring picture you posted. I'm not saying it's a bad image, just not the right kind for our purposes. And once again, please understand that the similarities are for different forests, not the same. You need to realize that, that is why I put them in there, and there's not a bit of "redundancy" about it. I'm comparing the Lost Woods to the Sacred Grove, Ordon Village to the Kokiri Forest, etc. Those are different comparisons. Please let's work out something here so we can work together and quit this pointless scrambling of the work that has been done so far. And as I said in my page, I would hope you would have the decency to at least consult me about removal of things I have written even as a friendly gesture, or to ask me what purpose I placed it there for. Link87 05:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it ironic that you chide me for using Nintendo of Europe official art while you used the Prima Games guide as evidence for a theory on the Jabun page. The similarities do not need to be mentioned more than once. They're mentioned twice as it is. Ganondorfdude11 06:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're grasping at straws there my friend, the Prima Guide is an AMERICAN OFFICIAL GUIDE as stated atop the cover. You are presenting images that are neither Japanese or American, and have no place in such an article as the one for Hyrule. And yes, I'm afraid the similarities can be mentioned, as they are NOT mentioned twice, which you are mistaking. I am comparing Kokiri Forest to Ordon Village, Sacred Grove to Lost Woods, etc., etc., etc. You have no argument here really, and you are not the one that wrote some of these, I went to the trouble to do it. So sorry that you may feel jaded, but I would hope you could get over some of these childish antics and work with me rather than against me. I only wish to get the best and most eye-catching article together by any means necessary, even if that means I have to consult and negotiate with others helping in the effort. I would hope you would also try to negotiate and actually work with the effort rather than just unilaterally removing whole sections of relevant information and replacing official pictures with ones some aren't even familiar with. Link87 06:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Prima guide was not official, but that's neither here nor there. I uploaded a new image of the in-game map of the area. The section comparing the Lost Woods to Sacred Grove does not need to be stated in both the Lost Woods and Sacred Grove sections. It's in the Sacred Grove section because that's where it's more relevant. I also resent you calling my edits "childish antics" while you take it upon yourself to decide what is and isn't official art, as if you were a better arbiter of such things than Nintendo themselves. Ganondorfdude11 06:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're wrong about the Prima Guide, as it says in big bold letters OFFICIAL STRATEGY GUIDE atop the cover. Sorry man, but I have to go with logic on that point, and logic says your reasoning is flawed. And yes, I will call out childish acts when I see them, and your reversion of my work despite my attempts to explain to you what they were there for are indeed childish. Sorry, but it's the truth. And yes, if you think for one second that image you had of the Lost Woods was a decent image that best represented the woods, then I would have to agree that I am a better arbiter of such things, as I believe in taking things that most identify with and using them as the representatives of the topics, not remote and unknown images most don't even recognize. Nintendo themselves go by Nintendo of Japan and Nintendo of America first and foremost, with America's being given prominence over others. You presented an image that most have probably never even seen before and wasn't even clear. Sorry, but that's the truth. I presented a WELL KNOWN image of the Lost Woods that many have come to identify with and that came from the American manual. I would ask that you please stop instigating partisan fighting and please work with me on this project rather than against me. I'm here to assist in the effort too, and you could at the very least just ask me about what I write if you have reservations about it. I'm not going to bite your head off if you ask me a question. Link87 06:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I should not have to ask you before I add anything. This is not your wiki and it is not your article. The image I had was from the official European player's guide. From Nintendo, not Prima. It's just arrogance to assume that "I haven't seen that before, therefore no one has seen it before." I'm not trying to be partisan or start an edit war. I'm trying to keep the monstrous page size down. We've had to split it twice already due to its massive length. I was simply trying to reduce the amount of text that had become unwieldly. Ganondorfdude11 06:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It would help tamper down on these fights of ours if you would at least try asking me about things I've written, and I would not take any offense at it if you actually conversed with me a bit here. We're supposed to be working together here. I've not deleted your work before, I've added to it due to lack of detail but I commended your work nonetheless. You on the other hand just take it upon yourself to deem what should and should not be there, regardless of the writer's opinion or not. If you actually just calmly asked me what purpose those things had and explained why you felt they didn't need to be in there, this kind of stuff wouldn't happen. And yes, not many people in America or Japan, the biggest places for Zelda, have seen "Nintendo of Europe" pictures. I commend your efforts to cut down the article's size, but you can't just cut everything and have one or two sentences a piece, what's the use of having an article then? So a word of advice: you could try conversing with the others doing work on the article if you feel something that someone else has written doesn't need to be in there. And if there's any arrogance here, it's on both our parts, as I can see a lot of it in you, unliaterally dictating what pictures should be used and what text should be kept without regard for the opinion of anyone else, namely the person that took the time to write it. I'm equally guilty of things too, I'm not perfect as nobody is. But I suggest from now on, that we both try to work more closely together and keep on the same page as one another, b/c this infighting is pointless and time-consuming. I'm not your enemy Ganondorfdude, I'm grateful that you are helping in the effort to finish this article, unlike some who blow a lot of wind but do nothing to help constructively, but I would prefer that we work more closely together and put this pointless arguing aside. Link87 14:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

An Idea
Hey Ganondorfdude11, I have a proposition for you that I think would be a great compromise for what we were discussing the other day about pictures, and I credit some of our other colleagues on the wiki for giving me this idea: the unique and rare pictures that not as many are familiar with, like the Nintendo of Europe picture you presented before, could be placed in a gallery on the page at the bottom, similar to the main page for Hyrule. We could use pictures that most are familiar with for the sections within the subpage, but the more unique pictures like the one you found could be placed in a gallery at the bottom. That way everyone is happy, and they may draw more attention from users who have not seen them before, therefore enhancing the article's appeal to new and even long-time fans of the series. Would this be an idea you would be open to? And if so, would you like to be the one to put it together? And if I may ask, where exactly did you find that picture before, and were there any others like it that depicted other locations? Link87 19:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It was in the Zelda Legends image gallery under official art. However, there really only needs to be one Lost Woods image on the page, and the in-game map is a better image anyway. We don't need to create a gallery just to make the page bigger. The disputed image is already on the Lost Woods page. Ganondorfdude11 21:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, well that's fine. I do agree we need to control the size of the page as much as possible. I have been trying to trim sections down and condense things already. I trimmed the Royal Valley section today and did the same with Hyrule Castle a day or so ago. Link87 21:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Skype
Hi there. I was wondering if you would like to join a Zelda Wiki chat on Skype? Details are here. If you're interested in joining, please contact one of the staff members via Skype so they can add you. 22:05, October 5, 2009 (UTC) 22:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have an account on Skype Ganondorfdude?? If so, what is your s/n on there?? We can chat there and come to an arrangement that satisfies us both. Link87 04:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have one yet. Ganondorfdude11 05:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We'd be extremely grateful if you'd install skype. It's free and rather painless. And it would make discussing ongoing projects between you, Chris, and the rest of the staff a lot smoother for everyone. 03:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Imprisoning War Project
Hey Ganondorfdude, I have been working on a project to create a new article for the Imprisoning War, and I noticed you made an edit on the page and thus have some interest in it. I would like to invite you to share some of your ideas with me about how the page I've been making so far looks, if you think there should be anything included that I haven't already, if there's things that you feel ought to be subtracted, or if you think the format that I've drawn up is good. If you get time, would you mind checking my sandbox and just leaving a note perhaps on the discussion page for it of what your take is on the way it's shaping up. I'd like another's opinion and to integrate new ideas you or others may have that I have not yet thought of for it. Thanks! Link87 17:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We could do well merging some of your text into the main article. The theories section is pretty much complete as it is, though. No need to expand that one. Ganondorfdude11 17:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree we could merge what I've done already, and I agree we don't need to add to the theory section, but I am of the mind to cut down its size a bit, so that it doesn't look like such a mess. You know what I mean? Just pick out the most important things and list them. Then we can leave readers to draw their own conclusions about what the support or discrepancies mean for themselves. The way I have it now, for example, I've taken a brief summary of the major events of OOT and put that first, then I created two small sections below it that list the supporting evidence and the discrepancies for the game. That way I figured it would look more organized and easier to read. What do you think?? Link87 17:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's merge the text first and then work on the theories section. I'm working on merging some of your text now and adding references. Ganondorfdude11 17:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok great, thank you. I'm not as capable with the coding necessary for the references. What ones are in there are ones that were already in the article. And I'm gonna have to get off here and head to a class here soon, so thank you for doing that for me, I appreciate it. Link87 17:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Ganondorfdude, I noticed you've been using the Japanese version of events for the Imprisoning War's history, but it is my understanding that the wiki goes primarily by the American version of events. So I put the text that I had formed from the American manual into the article to reflect this practice, but could you perhaps do the citations for that version of events? We could mention the differences between the stories in the Trivia section at the bottom of the page that is being formed. Also, I wrote the part about the Master Sword so that it is more ambiguous as to its origins since there are vast differences between the two versions. So to solve that, I merely mentioned the fact that they had been searching for one to take it up, but I didn't mention anything in the main text about how it was created or how old it was I don't think. But I have been making a Trivia section where we can go into detail about how the two versions differed in regards to the Master Sword's origins. Does that sound good to you??


 * Also, the link for the pages for the manual are at , so if you need to see the pages for the American version of events you can find them there. That's where I get almost all my new pictures for the wiki. Link87 19:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been using the Japanese version in cases where there is a discrepancy. The American version of the manual was really mangled up in translation. In places where the two accounts agree, I've been citing the American Version. Note that the US version has obvious errors like "Wise Men" instead of Sage and says that the people forged the Master Sword after Ganon was around. The Twilight Princess origin of the Master Sword matches up with the original Japanese version, wherein the ancient sages forged it as a preemptive measure against evil. Ganondorfdude11 01:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're exactly right about the Master Sword, that's why I tried to write it as ambiguously as possible in the main text. I did note it in the Trivia section in my sandbox though, so we can give some more details about the differences there too. And I said exactly what you did there, that TP fell in line more with the Japanese version of events concerning the sword's origins. Btw, thank you for helping with the references, I appreciate it a bunch. ;) Link87 20:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

East /West
Is there a reason you changed the Lost Woods OoS from Northwest to Northeast? Normally in game directions are:
 * North

West.........East
 * South 03:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a simple mistake. I'll fix it. Ganondorfdude11 03:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-Canon Label

 * Ganondorfdude11, I fully understand what you have said about the label, however please try to understand where I'm coming from: the Trivia section will inevitably not contain all non-canon information. While the present pieces of trivia are indeed non-canon, that is already noted in the bullet that is affected. A label over the entire section is not appropriate in this situation because the entire section is not solely for the manga, it is for any source of trivia related to the Sheikah, canon or non-canon. Non-canon pieces must be denoted in each affected bullet, but not all of them are going to be non-canon. I hope you can understand this is nothing personal, just thinking ahead to when we inevitably expand the Trivia section. Do you understand what I mean? We already denote that it's non-canon in the bullet already as well too, I made sure of that. Link87 01:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Edits
The multiple, consecutive page edits have got to stop. It floods the recent changes and the page histories. Not to mention is highly annoying and difficult to patrol. It's not very hard to click show preview. I mean, several edits to the same page are understandable but 20-30 are just ridiculous. 19:49, November 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * Although Mandi put that somewhat too bluntly from my liking, it's a valid point and one that I hope you'll take on board. For myself, and I'm sure for others as well, it's a matter of pride to make changes in as few edits as possible. We do this out of courtesy to the many others who use the Recent Changes daily, and to the dedicated staff team who work hard to ensure that every edit here at ZW is checked and verified. A number of things can help with this, including planning all the information you'd like to add, using a spellchecker and editing the whole article rather than using the section edit links. Also, I can't urge you strongly enough to compose large edits in a text-based document on your computer before posting; not only does this help with the problem of multiple edits, but you protect yourself accidentally from losing unsaved work. 20:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks bro
Thanks for fixing all of the name tags. I kinda got caught up before I could get to it. But several staff members were saying that 1. we needed it, in order to help find correct names, and 2. it shouldn't be so prominent on an article. So this was pretty much the solution 06:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

ZWAIF
We have relocated from Axi's sandbox to our own project page here. Please use this from now on :3 03:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Spirit War
GD11, please accept what Ax said and stop trying to impose your own will on something not everyone has formed an opinion on yet. Let's take this aside and not create an edit war here. I say we leave it as it originally was for now, and later on, if evidence appears to support what you say, we can change it then. But at present, the evidence points to Niko's version of events. Let's just take a time out here and quit making an edit war out of it, does that sound fair? Link87 04:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence has appeared, just look it up in the [text dump]. One word hardly supersedes three contradictory statements, including one by someone who should have been there. Ganondorfdude11 04:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ganondorfdude11, please understand this: He states that they were there himself. That's a "direct" reference. The ones you've presented have been mentioned in trivia tentatively until something more direct appears to necessitate a change. Yours are "indirect" references that don't sound foolproof such as "How could that be?". Please for the sake of the wiki, let's leave it be for now and wait for others to be able to bring their views to the table too before we charge into this without all the facts. And let me say this: Reign said the same thing as you, but even he admitted Niko's statement was direct enough that his version seemed more believable. I made the trivia section to specifically note such concerns as yours, at least until we have more concrete evidence to change the main part of the article. If more direct evidence pertaining to the actual war arises, I'll be more than happy to change it to reflect accordingly. Doesn't that sound fair to you? If it was good enough for Reign, I would hope it would be good enough for you as well. Link87 04:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't take any sides, just stop with the reverting and arguing. Theorize both views if need be:

Chris's view

 * source and quote
 * source and quote 2
 * etc

Ganondorfdude 11's view
Nothing hard about that. 05:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * source and quote
 * source and quote 2
 * etc


 * There is nothing theoretical about Niko's view however, I merely surmised what he said. Since we don't know the full details of what GD11 is proposing, I have suggested we simply leave things be for now until we have more concrete evidence to necessitate such a change. He is after all the one that gives us the full story of the war directly. If we get more direct, concrete indications that things happened differently from what Niko said, I'd be more than happy to change the article myself. This is nothing personal against anyone, just stating what is known from Niko and mentioning that there are some indirect discrepancies as well. That's the best we can hope for right now until more direct evidence surfaces. One of the quotes presented for this discrepancy also questions itself saying "How could that be?". That does not sound like a direct confirmation and thus that is why I placed it in trivia for the time being, along with Zelda's remark. Even she is going by second-hand information in saying she'd "heard" something, again not giving a firm, direct confirmation. That is why these ended up in trivia for the time being until something more substantial arises to directly confirm their value. Link87 05:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)