User talk:Christopher-gpuser

Edits
I've noticed you are making a lot of edits to the same page in a short amount of time. It would be better if you clicked the "Show preview" button instead to check your edits and see if they work as you intended instead of saving the page each time. That way you don't flood the page histories and the recent changes. 15:31, June 3, 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you should listen to Matt. It's annoying seeing all the edits you made. 16:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Unifying War
"I beg your pardon, but "Unifying War" is also a fanon name, and thus neither is more correct than the other. In the absence of a formal title, either should suffice until an official one is name. Having "a" name is better than having "no" name."


 * 1) Always put your name at the end of a message.
 * 2) I did not move it, my dear friend. That was Adam, who redirected it to an already existing article that was about the same subject. Both names sound good to me and I couldn't care less which one becomes the article's title. But I prefer well cited articles that either give a source for the name or admit it's fanon. That's all I did, making a note for future readers that it is not an official name. Adam made the redirect after my edit and I just didn't get to editing the Unifying War article.
 * 3) I changed, and will change again, a lot of what you had written there. Most of it is fanfiction, pure speculation, and as such has no place in any of the articles here. If you want it to stay, please find a few sources to verify your claims first or put it under a theory section.IfIHaveTo 06:49, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Actually, I did. I used the games themselves and referenced them. And I have also said that all of it is based only on what we know from the games and as such is not 100% certain. That is putting words in someone's mouth to be quite honest. Link87 08:58, 19 December 2007 (EST)

I thought it was better to move this to your new, real talk page.
 * Putting words into someone's mouth? Exactly what the *bleep* are you talking about? I said that it's fanfiction, which is why I changed it. What words am I putting into your mouth right now? I also said that it is unsourced and need sources, because you are claiming a lot of things that need to be backuped. Take a look at the Sea Zora article, or Golden Chief Cylos article if you need to see what I mean. Other than that, I have this to say about the Hyrulean Civil War article you made:


 * 1) You keep removing the bolding of the first mentioning of the article's subject. Don't do that anymore. Also, keep the fanon name reference, as it has to be clear that the name is fanon and that there is no source that claims otherwise. You may think this is unnecessary, but it's not. Believe me, if you really wnat info about a certain subject, you need such info.
 * 2) "While not much concrete information is known about this conflict, its history can be pieced together with careful study of the texts and cutscenes that appear throughout the series." - Unnecessary comment that suggests the whole article is not written to present fact, but interpretation. This is not your wiki. Keep things neutral. Sentences like "What is definitely known" are like a confrimation that your theory is truth. Don't do that.
 * 3) It is unknown at the moment whether the Imprisoning War mentioned in ALTTP really is the war Ganon started in OOT. Many people think otherwise, and it's not our place to tell them they're wrong. Especially since there's no proof anyone is right.
 * 4) "It can also be surmised that Ganondorf's service in the war earned him some standing with the King of Hyrule (which he put to good use at the opening of the Imprisoning War), as the King was not so quick to believe Princess Zelda's accusations concerning Ganondorf's treachery without concrete proof, seemingly trusting him." - Biggest speculation ever. You have no proof of that. For all we know, Ganondorf might've not even met the king until after the war.
 * 5) "It was noted in the opening cutscene of The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past that there was a war between the tribes of Hyrule over the Triforce at some point in Hyrule's distant past" - This needs a quote so badly. If you would be refering to this "Many people aggressively sought to enter the hidden Golden Land..." then I have one thing to say to you: "many people" does not equal "the tribes of Hyrule". And, like I said, the status of the Imprisoning War is too debatable to be a safe argument. We do NOT know what this war was about and you can't claim the Hyrulean Civil War was a war for the Triforce.
 * 6) "The presence of the Temple of Time in TP also suggests that the game occurred within a century following OoT" - This doesn't make sense at all. Just explain to me what logic is behind that sentence, because I fail to see it. How come, for instance, that it's impossible this game takes place, say, 500 years after OOT? Or 1000? Why within 100 years?
 * 7) "the Great Deku Tree (later to become a successor Forest Temple), the Fire Temple (later known as the Goron Mines)" - If I'd been speculation hungry, I think I won't be anymore for the following months.
 * Point is, almost all your statements, and thus almost the whole article, are(is) speculation. That's not how this wiki works. Things should be either fact or put under a "Theory"-header. And no, putting the whole article under a theory-header is not going to work. At the very least, make sure you find sources to backup your claims. Don't just tell what the source is, give specific quotes and the likes.
 * And before I forget, read the Pendants of Virtue talk page first before making another edit in that article.IfIHaveTo 10:28, 19 December 2007 (EST)

As I said before, I have made it known that none of what has been said is the 100% certain, but I merely present the facts as we know them from the games so others can interpret them too in case they haven't thought of some of these things. By the same token t his isn't your wiki either, and if there is no information posted about the war, then I see no reason why there should be complaints when someone tries to actually give some information about it. If you have better information, by all means post it. I want to know very much what others think. I am merely presenting what I have discovered in my research, and none of what I said is imaginary, save for how the events are put together. And you have to remember, I said "possible," not "this is THE truth" which is why I said you were putting words in my mouth. As I said, I'd like to hear your information presented there if you have any, but please do not insult mine when I have said nothing imaginary and have made it clear that it is not 100% certain. Link87 10:36, 19 December 2007 (EST)

I agree
I do agree that you are just stating facts...but really thats not what I believe that page should be about..in a way what you did is like someone making a page about Ganon or Darbus and then the whole page is a history of their tribes.

I don't mind the theories and the facts that tie it together in fact I would love to hear loads but to write the entire Ocarina of Time story in a page meant for only the Seal War seems completely unnecessary. I know you may have heard this before but still I have to say I think all that should be on that page is what we know about the sealing war from the ALttP manual and any other references or maybe any references to wars that are suspected of being the seal war, but not a whole game's plot. Referencing the game OoT can be done too but doesn't have to so in depth.

Again I just think that the most important thing about the Seal War page should be the Seal War, and what we know of it...with of course theories beneath it. since it would be a short page with just what we "know" anyways whether or not you care for what I said I would like to argue (the nice way) about this on the Seal War page's discussion page because I want to know as well where the seal war all fits in.

P.S. I was about to change the whole thing but thought it would be more proper to ask the person who did it since it looks like you put a lot of hard work into writing it. So now I leave the choice to you. --Remo 05:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

you gonna come back to me any time at all about this?

yes, sorry i've been away for a while. but yes, we can discuss it if you'd like. what else is there to take care of? Link87 16:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

About the edit war
I guess this is my apology for the edit war fiasco. Once the page is unlocked, I'll work to make it more balanced and not just catered to my point of view. Maybe this template can work: Undisputed facts in the main article, with two theory sections explaining each point of view. That's what eventually happened with the Imprisoning War page when a similar scenario happened. So sorry for screwing everything up and being so hard-headed.Ganondorfdude11 06:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. Link87 16:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)