User talk:Mandi2517@legacy41958928


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

Mulitple Edit
Why don't you just make a template like ? -- կրակ (խոսել) -- 04:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We have a preview template here. 04:47, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

WikiExclusive Idea
Hay, can you do me a favor? I didn't know who to give this to. My page is here. It was ment to be a rough draft for a forum, but Cipriano 119 nominated/sugested that I give this to a sysop to make it a WikiExclusive. Please review it and tell me whether it is good or not.-- կրակ (խոսել) -- 03:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it seems like you contacted Mases about this and he'salready brought it up in our staff forums. So, it's already been "submitted" so-to-speak! :P 15:22, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Spellings
Quick question. British or American spellings?

Regards, ShadowBroker44 00:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See here. It's American. 00:24, February 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yup. We use the American spellings in articles. 00:34, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Article Standards
Many Featured Article like Link and Princess Zelda have the See also section with a lowercase "a", shouldn't we standarized articles with the Featured Article as model? Jeangabin 20:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Featured Articles are not exactly definite models to mold all others to. If a Featured Article has something not comforming to the quality standards then that should be fixed. No article, featured or not, in the or  namespaces are above these standards, other namespaces it doesn't really matter. And anything that has the old tag, which is very buggy, should be converted to plain formatting or the see also template. 21:38, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Pretty much what Matt said. And as time passes, articles such as the Link and Princess Zelda articles were nominated a...long time ago. So, they've since been edited a lot and considering the article size, it's easy for a mistake to slip through. So, no; featured articles aren't exactly a "standard" to set other articles after. 22:53, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

TDL message
im sorry for blanking Deku Link i was editing to see how to put a fan of someone(dark link ) i tried to copy and paste but i hit delete,i am a REALLY BIG fan of dark link nad wanted that user is a fan of thing,you see the dark link fan thing im really sorry--Toon Dark Link 21:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, mistakes happen, so it wasn't a big deal; we were just wondering what the crap you were doing :P If you need any help with editing, don't hesitate to ask me or another one of our active users and/or admins. :) 21:45, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

hey could u check-out my dark link pic ai made(recolored from alttp) Dark Link took me 20 minutes--Toon Dark Link 22:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC) hey mandi,could i put fan art in dark link,could i do that?ganondude keeps deleteing it


 * Could you sign your posts with ~ ? And fan art isn't allowed in articles, sir. So, that would be the reason Ganondorfdude keeps removing it! ;P 00:35, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

King Gustaf
Mandi, I placed the information under a theory tag and near the bottom of the page, with quotes and all. You removed the information without real reason, and I am requesting that you restore it because it meets the requirements for mentioning in an article. I understand you do not like edit-warring, but this was not really an edit war so much as a difference of opinions. I am respectfully asking that my discovery be restored before seeking further action. There have been many other instances where such discoveries have been mentioned on pages given they meet the requirements, and this is no different. So before we involve anyone else, I would like to ask you to restore the information as I last had it, proper placement and tags included. Link87 19:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your information was nothing more than a theory. ZW.org is not the place to dump theories. I will not hesitate to repeat this as many times as necessary for you to comprehend it, considering your history and love of circular arguments. :) 19:32, April 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * This was not a theory and you know it. It was under a tag what's more if you even cared to look at it. But then again you've always acted before thinking or reasoning. I had everything there if you'd kindly go back and look. This is not a theory, this is merely pointing out fallacies in a theory. I am once again asking that it be restored, as there are numerous other pages that make note of such things. ZW.org is a place for Zelda information, and this is valid information that can potentially help fans in formulation of their theories. I would hope that someone like you could understand that by this point. And if you are not willing to negotiate a compromise here, then I will be taking the matter to more unbiased staffers that will. I would prefer that we come to a compromise without going that far however to avoid creating tensions between yourself and me. Link87 19:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop throwing a fit, please? We're going to reword and repost the information. It is a theory, it will be identified as such. 19:47, April 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * THANK YOU! I'm glad you're able to see reason here. The quotes are not a theory, but the general outline can perhaps fall under speculation. I am not unreasonable, and I'm glad to see that you're willing to see reason as well here. I will be watching to see the information's restoration. Link87 19:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

*Insert Unnecessary Nerd Rage*
I'm not trying to instigate anything, but can I ask why you deleted back in January? 08:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm... I can't really remember what it was but the reason I deleted it was that it was tagged with Delete. If it was something you were using I can restore it. 13:04, April 18, 2010 (UTC)