Talk:Sheikah

Sheik is not a Sheikah
Sheik is Zelda. Zelda is a Hylian. Sheik =/= Sheikah.
 * Hylian = anyone living in Hyrule. What you should have said was that Zelda is a human, which the games seem to be making more of a big deal about making a point of. Regardless, though, while Zelda may be human, when she transforms into Sheik she is physically Sheikah, therefore Sheik = Sheikah. --Ando 10:03, 7 February 2008 (EST)
 * I think you're all confusing Hylian with Hyrulean. Also, if you consider the Sheikah as a tribe rather than a race, as suggested below, then the problem ceases to exist. --Adam (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2008 (EST)
 * Ah. "Hylian" and "Hyrulean" always confused me as a kid, and I never bothered to get it straightened out. :P --Ando 19:11, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Sheik is a Sheikah
Hylians are anyone who resembles a human. Sheikahs are a tribe who were used to protect the Royal Family. So that means Sheik is a Sheikah.
 * The Sheikah were a special race of humans that were mostly killed out, and those left protected the royal family. Hylians are another special race of humans with pointed ears, and regarded as closest to the gods. The Sheikah are the shadow folk, the Gerudo the spirit folk, the Hylia the light folk, etc...KrytenKoro 21:44, 7 February 2008 (EST)

And Hyruleans are people living in Hyrule. Toon Link 2 11:54, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Shiek is a Shiekah
I'm not entirely sure the Sheikah are another race entirely. More of a cult, I think.
 * I think "tribe" would be the best description (as suggested above), and I'm almost sure that's used in-game at some point? Anyone? --Adam (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2008 (EST)
 * I just went through the text dump and I found nothing about their status as a tribe or anything except maybe this:
 * "Have you heard the legend of the 'Shadow Folk'? They are the Sheikah...the shadows of the Hylians."
 * That's it. They're known as the "Shadow Folk" and they're called the "shadows of the Hylians". That's it. Nothing else to be found. :/ --Ando 19:11, 7 February 2008 (EST)
 * The japanese does use "zoku" to refer to them, meaning tribe. (シーカー族). However, I'm pretty sure they're one of the human tribes, since Gerudo and Hylia are included in that grouping.KrytenKoro 21:42, 7 February 2008 (EST)
 * I have been thinking about that too. They seem more of cult and tribe to me then a race. I mean, they are hardly a race in my eyes. They resemble Hylians with Silver hair and red eyes which for all we know could just be a coincidence. I mean just cause Impa had red eyes and silver hair doesn't mean every Shiekah does. And as Impaz, she is probably a relative from Impa so obviously she would look a lot like hair. Just my thoughts. -Lord Harken
 * In my opinion the sheikah are more like to be a race since they are told to be the "Shadows of the Hylians". Hylian is a race, Gerudo another race (obvious because they have a man born only every 100 years) and Sheikahs is a race as well for been the shadow of another race and have similaritys between them like red eyes and white hair. If they were told to be the shadows of the hyrulean the story would be completely different. Just my thoughts too. --Fella 01:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Agahnim?
Agahnim couldn't have been the traitor that caused them to put the tear on the symbol, seeing how Ocarina Of Time happened before A Link To The Past, and therefore the tear would've already been there.

"Legends of the Temple"
Exactly what temple are we talking about? What is that section supposed to be? I'd write something there but... not sure what exactly is supposed to go there. :/ --Ando 10:03, 7 February 2008 (EST)


 * You should ask KrytenKoro since he added it, along with the text: " ". --Adam (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2008 (EST)


 * Wait, I found something in the game. When you meet Sheik in the Temple of Time, he says this:
 * "When evil rules all, an awakening voice from the Sacred Realm will call those destined to be Sages, who dwell in the five temples. One in a deep forest... One on a high mountain... One under a vast lake... One within the house of the dead... One inside a goddess of the sand... Together with the Hero of Time, the awakened ones will bind the evil and return the light of peace to the world... This is the legend of the temples passed down by my people, the Sheikah."
 * So I'm guessing that's what KrytenKoro meant by that. Beyond that quote, though, there's seems to be no more information about this supposed legend. Would this make the section moot, considering there's really nothing more to write? --Ando 19:11, 7 February 2008 (EST)
 * All I know is that it is specifically said to be a Sheikah legend, so it should be mentioned or linked to on this page. Plus we can get rid of that ugly "Temples of Power" page, since that name doesn't even make sense.KrytenKoro 21:39, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Who decided to delete all the info from the section but leave the section title? It makes the page look very, very sloppy. I don't know why this was done, and it probably should have been discussed on the talk page. So then my question is this: why is it like this?--Magnus orion 21:16, 31 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Um, if you read my post above, I explained that the section has always been blank. It was added with no (visible) text as a "placeholder", and the posts above explain (roughly) what was intended to go there. Nothing has ever been deleted from the section. Hence the template. —Adam (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2008 (EDT)


 * Oh... While this explains why there is no info there... It still makes the page look sloppy... I beleive we have two options: add the bit above with the quote and such, or delete the title section... I know that the game says it is a sheikah legend, so it probably should be mentioned in a little detail, while noting that it is disputed as to whether the person speaking even counts as a shiekah... --Magnus orion 18:04, 1 April 2008 (EDT)


 * OK, go ahead and add it. It can always be discussed/changed/removed later if required (as long as there's actually something there to start with!) —Adam (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm not entirely convinced that there's actually something to put there, honestly. It's hardly referenced at all in the game, except for "There are five sages you must save, and beat Ganon with them. That's the legend." I really can't think of any way that that could be expanded upon within the article. --Ando (T : C) 13:34, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Males?
Although the red eyes are a key example of what makes a Shiekah, so is silver/gray hair. Yet, all the possible male Shiekahs do not have silver/gray hair. The only known male to have both red eyes and silver/gray hair is the Fierce Deity transformation from Majora's Mask. However, this is just a transformation the mask does to you. Could this mean that the reason the females only appear and that there are no mention of male Shiekah is because the traitor the tale speaks of could have in fact killed all the males, or at least most of them. It's all my speculation of course. If i'm wrong on anything please correct me. ~User:Lord Harken
 * We have met two Sheikah (plus possibly Impaz): Impa and Sheik. What we know of the Sheikah are from them. Impa is supposedly the last of her kind (although TP indicates that they just formed the Hidden Village). Sheik isn't even a real Sheikah. We can make no assumptions based on those two. Especially because it's possible that Impa just grayed up early.
 * And I'm sure the "traitor" thing comes from the manga only, so nothing in there makes really much difference to Sheikah lore. Saibh 20:46, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

the eye symbol
The eye symbol tear drop stuff from the manga was receantly switched from 'may or may not be canon' to 'is not canon'. While I agree that the OoT, or any other Manga is not technically canon, ideas presented in it can be. For example, in the OoT manga, Shiek attempts to hide his/her idenity from Ganondorf by pretending to work for him, and nothing in the OoT game directly contradicts that he/she may have been pretending to work for Ganondorf to fool him. While I personally don't believe this, it may or may not be canon, even though its source contains material that verifiably isn't. Therefore, nintendo hasn't done anything to negate the manga's statement in any way, unlike say, the volgania (is that how you spell it?) issue, where the game directly contradicts the manga. Since the Manga is (most likely) approved by nintendo, anything that they do not directly contradict may possibly be canon.--Magnus orion 21:37, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Again, we can't assume things. It's not canon, because we've never had any indication that anything that happens exclusively in the manga is. Besides, the sentence said, specifically, that the manga may not be canon, not that the legend did.
 * I've said this before, there can be no assuming things because of lack of the otherwise. You can indicate that it's a widely-accepted theory, but you can't just say "it is" because nothing ever says "it's not". The manga is not canon. You have to agree with that. Nothing in it can be taken for canon, or possible canon. Things that happen in it can be used to back up, but not prove, and it never equates canon. Regardless, the most important point is that the sentence indicated that the manga might not be canon, not that legend (again).
 * Anything that happens in the manga we don't see in the games is non-canon. There should be no gray zone--there are theories (like Impaz being a Sheikah) that are backed up by canon, but not just ones that work because they don't contradict canon.
 * A better phrasing would be "In the manga, Sheik explains that blah blah, which may be applicable to the game." or some such. At any rate, this is my personal policy. Saibh 06:14, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Ah... Ok, the wording caught me. In my mind it was implying that not only was the manga not canon, but everything in the manga was not canon as well. And yes, I agree, we can't assume anything. Its just that the manga had to be approved by nintendo, so there is the possiblity of nintendo actually using parts of it as 'canon', but regradless of views and other things, the information should be included in the wiki, unbiasedly, for its mention. (PS It may not be aparent from my first post, but I loathe the manga because of the way it is written and its sheer contradiction of canon. I just think that information should just be included regardless of whether or not it is agreed with, just noting that the manga does not, necessarily consitute canon)--Magnus orion 17:13, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

"Passing References?"
Why do games like and  which don't feature the Sheikah in any fashion have their own sections? I thought stuff like the eye symbol in the Forsaken Fortress would just be listed under Trivia or somesuch. Ganondorfdude11 00:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the Impa from the Oracles games is never confirmed to be Sheikah. Ganondorfdude11 00:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, if there is a reference or appearance of the Sheikah, I gave them a section each, I see nothing wrong with that. I will try to write in that no actual Sheikah themselves appear in the game however, as you have said. I just want to make sure the games that do have references to the Sheikah are given note as well, that's all. And the Impa of the Oracle games is never said not to have been a Sheikah either, but following OOT, the Impa character is established as a Sheikah, and her possession of the red eyes and pointed ears proves that. It is not confirmed about the versions of Impa before OOT, but OOT and beyond do establish her as a Sheikah. Link87 00:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The red eyes and pointed ears rule is generally fanon-made, so the Impa from the Oracles should really go under "Possible Members," because she is never said to be Sheikah. Note that she doesn't even wear the eye symbol. It might be a similar situation to Fado, where there are two Fados who are Kokiri but one who is Ordonian. I'm not saying she isn't one, but it isn't confirmed and is really presumptuous to assign a race to a character when the name of the race isn't even mentioned in dialogue or heavily implied like in the case.Ganondorfdude11 00:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ganondorfdude11, those are not fanon-made, they are featured in-game and established as such. Fado is merely a name, not a biological feature, so that does not really compare in this case. All evidence points to her being one, and it is established post-1998 that her character is of the Sheikah race. It is the early games that are unknown. I see no presumption in the establishment by Nintendo that starting after 1998, her character is defined as a Sheikah, and even that is kept in TP. Impaz is all but certain to be a Sheikah, and she even states that she is named for the one that founded the village, which most agree is Impa. That being said, the Sheikah establishment of Impa's character has been established since 1998 and hasn't changed since. Link87 01:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just be careful not to read into things too much to force them to fit possible theories. Impaz being named for Impa does not mean she's a descendent of Impa, nor does it mean she's Sheikah. Look at OoT, Darunia names his son after Link the Hylian. So Link the Goron can say that he was named for the Hero of Time, but that does not make him Hylian, nor a descendent of Link. Lysia 01:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Duly noted Lysia, but it does not read that Impaz is Impa's descendant, but it's all but certain her name comes from Impa however, the evidence is overwhelming there. Link87 01:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While it's true that the implication is there, it could very well be like the Fado case. I just think that she should be moved down into the "possible members" section we have already. And stuff like the Gossip Stones and Eye Symbol should really be compressed into one section. No Sheikah are seen in, , or . The eye symbols are just cameo appearances, so maybe trim and put a section for cameos? Ganondorfdude11 01:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Fado case is merely concerning a name though GD11, it's not about biological features like this case. They are completely different. And as for the possible members section, I had planned to phase that out since the community did not like it and put the label on the page to begin with. Did you see the structure I developed in my sandbox? What are your feelings on the way it has shaped up there? And I am open to the idea you suggested about compressing, but can you explain or elaborate more for me so I have a clearer idea what you mean? Link87 01:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is clear evidence that Impa from Oracles is supposed to be Sheikah, so I'm not messing with that anymore. Ganondorfdude11 01:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's all right GD11, but can you tell me more about your other idea? What did you mean? Are you wanting to keep the Members of the Tribe section or not?? Link87 01:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I read through and saw that most of the stuff in that section was covered by your text, so I just deleted it. Ganondorfdude11 05:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Should Hero's Charm be mentioned in the Artifacts section?
This is a problematic thing to place. It is mentioned as being a cameo of the Sheikah eye symbol in the section, and functions much like the Lens of Truth and the Mask of Truth in that it reveals enemy health. Since references to the Sheikah are few, I'm not sure if the implication is supposed to be that it's Sheikah in origin or not. Any thoughts? Ganondorfdude11 18:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What references for it do you have? Tetra's little stone thing could be mentioned I think. 18:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Tetra's Pirate Charm is essentially a portable Gossip Stone, so I'll add it to the Gossip stone section. There are no references for the Hero's Charm, so I guess it would be better to leave it off. It does seem suspiciously similar to the Mask of Truth. But that might just be personal opinion talking. Ganondorfdude11 19:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Theories
Christopher, you re-added the following sentence into this article, which had been removed:

"A very similar symbol appears on the throne of the ruler of the Twilight Realm and on the back of the Fused Shadow as well."

This is in the revision dated 01:38, 27 October 2009. Your comment was, "...it is noteworthy b/c that is what has given rise to the Interloper/Twili Theory that has to be written." Theories should be kept separate from the main article. So wouldn't it be better to put this sentence into the theory section itself, once it's been written? I don't like the idea of including it in the main article purely to support a theory, especially as said theory hasn't even been written yet. Lysia 05:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Lysia, I re-added it yes, but made clear that it is not identical to the main Sheikah symbol. We spoke of Agahnim's symbol as well, so there's really no difference there. I can understand what you are saying, but it's not really a theory to simply point out that a similar symbol appears in those places in the game as well. So what I'm saying is please don't confuse the theory itself with a minor tidbit that is not a theory but a fact. That being said, I took the liberty to go on and write that particular section for the theory so that others may understand that statement above better. If you still want it removed from the main article after this, that is fine, but there is really no difference between this and Agahnim's symbol being spoken about in the "Eye of the Sheikah" section, and none of those are theories, they are just statements made to mark those appearances of similar symbols. Link87 15:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It should go in the "Trivia" section, anyway... 22:39, October 27, 2009 (UTC)


 * That is also possible, but it deals with the symbol. Either way, I don't mind, but it is relevant as I said, both Agahnim's symbol as well as the Twili symbol b/c they show the evolution of Nintendo's use of such a symbol. Link87 23:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Upon closer inspection of the Twili symbol, it doesn't seem to represent an eye at all. Maybe we're just seeing something in a geometric design that's not supposed to indicate anything? Ganondorfdude11 04:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Disregard the previous statement, I was thinking of a different symbol. Ganondorfdude11 04:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

At least a Thank you ZeldaWikia?
Your article was completely extracted from Zelda Wikia, link here [http:/zelda.wikia.com/wiki/Sheikah Sheikah]. Our wikis don't say a word about copyrights because that is not the idea, but what you did was so obvious, I think the idea is to compete not copy, but all I see here is a paraphrased text, same titles with different order, and nothing new to give. At least a please or thank you could have work. I don't know how you admins congratulate the user/users that do this kind of things. TheNewSheik 17:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not defending anyone, but if they copied it we wouldn't have references, images, and it would have been done in fewer edits. Our Zelda games are pretty much the same, and encyclopedias follow similar formats. So the overview between the two are going to have similarities. If we have an article for Spirit Tracks before Wikia, don't expect me to accuse anyone of 'copying' our article. 17:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a false accusation I'm afraid, all of this article was written by heart, not by copying or paraphrasing, and I will not "thank" anyone that had nothing to do with the aiding of building this article from scratch. Those that deserve thanks are Ax, GD11, and whoever else aided in this article's face-lift. This article is bound to be somewhat similar to any article written on the Sheikah. Simply b/c it may now surpass ZP's does not give them ownership over any part of this topic. So sorry, but I do not give credit where it is not due ZP. Link87 17:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Well solving minor details, our Sheikah article has references and images. If you didn't extract all you did from Zeldawikia, then link me something as complete a now the two wikis Sheikah articles. You won't find. Telling that you didn't have a window with Zeldawikia open while you write is hard to believe. I will no demand you to give credits, is enough with you daring to say you didn't copy anything. TheNewSheik 03:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Warping 03:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry NewSheik, but not one word of our article comes from yours, considering that ZP's is full of fan-fic statements that have no references to back them up and that it has a confusing structure to it. I'd suggest you go back to your own wiki and do something constructive, like cleaning up the fan-fic. And for your information, if we copied so much, why is our article's history filled with edits proving we made this article piece-by-piece?? It's a little hard to dispute cold, hard fact. As I said before though, I suggest you quit belly-aching about our article's new quality and go do something constructive on your own wiki. Link87 04:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? Our Sheikah article has even a page with all the references for the article, didn't you checked it when you use your Gust Jar function? And what about doing part by part? you could have went "warping" part by part from our article, also I imagine that admins need to correct when you do a bad paraphrasis. Our so fan fic? why to use it? TheNewSheik 04:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not one reference I could see on that page period, and for the last time, yours was not used as a reference at all for that very reason. It's inevitable some things are going to be similar. Oh yes, and our articles are about the same size, and half of yours is theory or fan-fic, so that doesn't really count. Sorry to disappoint you buddy, but you're making false accusations that don't have any place here. Link87 04:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can personally guarantee that every article on here is the work of a collaboration of individuals writing by heart. Nothing here was taken from Zeldapedia. I've contributed to a good portion of these articles and I've seen the rest. Please don't chuck accusations at us. Thank you. And you should probably cool off just a bit. If you think you have real evidence of theft, calmly and kindly bring it up on an administrator's talk page. 04:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't now what is your basis to say ours Sheikah article is fan-fic find for Sheikah/Quotes to see who is doing bad accusations? but if your are so based on references and in a encyclopedic way, for a start, then where are the references for the manga part or for one of your first sentences: "magical race devoted to the great Golden Goddesses"? TheNewSheik 04:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I will not continue with the discussion, it was enough taking a part of the disscusion page. I hope not to be discussing again soon. Long life to the user who write with the heart!TheNewSheik 04:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * TheNewSheik, once again, ours is based solely upon fact, and the same cannot be said for ZP's article (for example, see some of their wild claims about Bongo Bongo and the like on their page). Your accusations are false, and we have multiple members that can attest that this page was our own work. CASE DISMISSED. Link87 04:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't want to restart but our Bongo-Bongo section is under the theory template. And again that devotion to the goddesses is untrue in the parameters of fact. TheNewSheik 04:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong again, if they didn't serve the goddesses as well, then why did they have a legend about the Triforce?? Think about those things in future. This discussion is closed. Link87 05:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, seriously I thought on that, but the last time that I read their quotes I didn't even saw the word "goddesses".


 * Oh, so Sheik didn't state that the legend of the Triforce and the Sacred Realm was "passed down by the Sheikah", and Impaz didn't state that meeting Ilia was "ordained by the gods"??? Get your sources right man before grasping at straws. Link87 05:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Easy man, we end the disscusion what I mean is that stating that their are devote to the goddesses is an assumption not a fact, they could just be as believers as all Hyrule is, but not devoted. I'm not seeing the "based solely upon fact" you say. Implying that they are devoted just because they know of a Triforce is harsh, Ganondorf knows about it, is he devoted too?. TheNewSheik 05:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You're bordering on ridiculous buddy, if they believe in the Triforce and serve the Royal Family and are revered as Impaz indicated, OF COURSE they are devoted. To suggest otherwise is stupidity at its best, and all I see here is grasping at straws with no real case being present. You've had your 15 ridiculous minutes of fame here, but this case is closed as there is no case and it was very stupid of you to throw these baseless accusations to start with. You've wasted enough of our valuable time, discussion ended. Link87 07:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Aww come on Chris, this is now my favorite accuser. I mean if people judge the site he represents and/or his accusations by the gibberish he types, then well, that makes this wiki look brilliant! I don't want him to go away as long as he makes it clear he's a Zeldapedia Editor, so no one thinks this is one of ours. 07:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If I may interject, English isn't his first language.... so perhaps you shouldn't be so hasty to jump to conclusions thinking we're incompetent.T14 01:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * lol. I guess he's kind of right. 07:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Is everyone from Zeldapedia as much of a tool as you are? You should go back to your own Wiki and stop worrying about us. You could seriously be editing an article about Tingle right now. =] --Xizor 07:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

lol, they have 3,000 articles... that's more than us... 0_o 07:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * http://zelda.wikia.com/wiki/Reekfish_Scent I'm not jealous, we place similar content into one article and they split it all apart to have 3k tiny articles. And then there's things like an article for one room of one dungeon with the name "Tip of the Nose". So, not impressed. 08:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OMG, you have GOT to be kidding me, right???? Who in the world would make stubs for every single scent learned in TP???? Now that really IS ridiculous. Link87 23:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * yet over here half the pages are based on other websites and site history Don Lark Kiin

Yeah, don't bother ever asking us to remove anything ever again. Seeing as all you idiots ever do is deny everything anytime we have an issue, you can fully expect us to do the same in the future. And what's really embarassing Axiomist is that you would defend this tool box Hero of Time, not the fact that we dominate you on every level. Oh, and speaking of domination and your "warping" article; that is a pretty well written article. The first paragraph is brilliant, very much worthy of a featured article... haha... --EDJoe45 23:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No idea what all that ridiculous rambling was about, but may I make a suggestion Mr. Ed??? Go back to your fan-fic wiki where you belong and quit spewing nonsense, we have work to do around here that is more deserving of our attention than some nameless rambler from the stepchild wiki. Link87 23:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are such a loser HoT. Plain and simple. Either way this isn't really about you. God knows you'll never fess up to anything because your dismal existence won't allow it. This is directed at your admins, who claim to be just, but prove the opposite. Errr, actually, seems like you'd fit in with this crew quite nicely. A Zeldapedia reject of course can make it in this place. Doesn't surprise me. --EDJoe45 23:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I didn't make myself clear Mr. Ed, I am an editor of Zelda Wiki and do not and have never had a name like what you state. I'd say you are delusional, but I'm going to be the bigger person here and just tell you to quit while you are ahead. Go back to the stepchild wiki and leave our good wiki be, unless you wish to incur penalties as pursuant to our policies here. Link87 00:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are the most pathetic being I have ever conversed with. You honestly think you are kidding people when everyone knows its you, and everyone has for a while. I love how when people ask you if you are HoT, you say no, yet talk him up while putting down the other Zeldapedia admins. You are so desperate it makes me thank god that I am not you. So maybe I will go back to my wiki, but you won't. You see, you can't since you've been blocked for being a waste of life. --EDJoe45 00:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There you go again Mr. Ed, making up delusional stories to bash our fair operation here simply b/c we have a better operation and more cooperation here. I was indeed once an editor on your wiki but left long ago of my own accord due to the dysfunctional lack of cooperation your wiki seems to represent. But no, that was not my name, believe it or not, I don't really care if you do. Yes I knew the guy you were talking about, he did some things I didn't personally agree with, but he was not a bad guy from what I knew of him. I don't blame him for leaving your operation if you treated him in any way like you are here. So sorry to burst your bubble, but you've got the wrong guy I'm afraid, and no matter how many times you try to say it, it won't make it any more true. Of course if it brings you some strange delusional pleasure, don't let me stop you. In the meantime, stay off our wiki and start using a respectful tone toward our admin council unless you want penalties exacted upon you in accordance with our polices. Link87 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What was your user name? --EDJoe45 00:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We're talking like almost a year, year and a half ago buddy. I dissolved my account there of my own accord but began editing here near the start of this past summer when I remembered this place. I don't even remember what my name was there exactly, it was like LoZLover or something, but that's irrelevant now as I now work for our operation here. I don't remember if the name had anything else in it, it's been too long ago. Link87 00:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course you conveniently "don't remember". Well lets make this easier, tell me some things you edited. In fact tell me one page you edited. If you say you can't remember one, it just proves your full of s***. So tell me one and I'll find your user name "LoZLover". --EDJoe45 00:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Seriously guys, take it somewhere else and please stop spamming the talk page with trying to figure out who Chris is from ZP, alright? Any comments not involving the Sheikah article will be deleted after this warning. Thank you. Dany36 00:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to sound blunt Mr. Ed, but I dissolved my account there, if you will kindly remember, hence I doubt you'd find much there on me. I personally requested it, I forget who it was that did it for me, you're talking over a year ago. And secondly, once again it's been quite a while and I was only an occasional editor there, I don't remember everything I edited there b/c I wasn't a constant editor there. And all of this is irrelevant and has nothing to do with our wiki. Unless you have things to back up your accusations, I'd suggest watching what you say, it will not endear you to anyone here. If you continue to harass us, I will alert one of our capable admins to your rude demeanor. Link87 00:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hahaha of course you would make some bullshit excuse you loser. But I got you, we all know its you. Keep living your pathetic life. And for the record this article was stolen from ZP. Bottom line you can deny it all you want, but don't ever even think about telling us to remove anything that was "stolen" from here again. --EDJoe45 00:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * These false conspiracy theories are not related to the Sheikah, and your rudeness and false accusations have no place here sir. If you continue this, you may not like what results. Just a friendly suggestion. Link87 00:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Whats gonna happen tough guy? Am I going to get blocked? Ok, so all that will do is prove you idiots can't handle the truth and you couldn't pay me to edit here so it wouldn't effect me personally at all. --EDJoe45 00:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, this article was not copied from ZP. I mean, we both have encyclopedias that are BOTH regarding the same game. Come on, you know there are going to be some things that are going to resemble each other. Both articles have different characteristics, different points, and generally a different writing style. These articles were not copied. There are, however, some similarities, but, that's most likely coincidence. 00:53, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes they definitely were, bottom line. So once again, don't ever tell us to remove anything again. We can play this game too. --EDJoe45 00:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've seen enough. This has got to stop, and I'm not just directing this at the Zeldapedia users. My fellow Zelda Wiki editors should by NO means be insulting them and furthering a conflict. Cease and desist at once.

To Zeldapedia users: If you believe you have hard evidence of theft, report it to an admin. Don't go around doing this. It doesn't get you anywhere. 03:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh...what was the good of this?CC 02:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You complain about Zeldapedia theories, but still you do "Trinity of Truth" that is just laughable. If the Stone of Agony is Sheikah, then what's the point of doing a complete section just to talk about awareness and three items that you already stated that are Sheikah? Is just ridiculous and uninteresting theory, so if I found three similar items then is a trinity, then we can have the Trinity of Arrows, the Trinity of Bombs, the Trinity of Tunics, the Trinity of Oracles!..., you can't just make a little mention of that in items?. But in general is just complete useless and pointless. Principally, how can you state the Stone of Agony as a Sheikah relic? Oh sorry, your wiki is "based solely upon fact". TheNewSheik 15:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you go back where you belong and quit spouting nonsense. If you even bothered to read, you'd see an official source confirms it. Too bad though, there's an outbreak of foot-in-mouth disease coming from the other wiki it seems. It is also ironic that with as much work as needs doing on both wikis that the members of our counterpart waste their time trying to spew nonsense out of jealousy when they could actually be doing something useful on the other side. But hey, that's ZP for you. Link87 17:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Stone of Agony
I'm not sure we can actually can the Stone of Agony a Sheikah artifact. The Stone of Agony does not possess the Sheikah emblem like the Lens of Truth, the Mask of Truth, and the Gossip Stones. Yes, it does say that the Stone of Agony is the companion item for the Lens of Truth, but just because the Lens of Truth was made by the Sheikah, we can't really say the same for the Stone of Agony. Saying so is mere speculation, and it'd be better if that were to go under the theory section instead of making it seem like a fact. What do you guys think? Dany36 15:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Especially since the only place that says it is a companion item is Zelda.com, which is renowned for making up crap. 16:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I find it to be no coincidence that the Stone of Agony being acquired in Kakariko, just as the Lens of Truth, to be no coincidence whatsoever. Furthermore, the titles appear to be laid out as "The ___ of ____", so that also plays into this. 16:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with listing it as a relic, there is an official source that confirms it is a companion to the others regardless of the source's reputation. That insert about it was not just made up out of thin air, it does come from the official site nonetheless. If there is a source, it's fair to list in my book. Link87 17:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The insert wasn't made out of thin air, but the source was. Nintendo of America has no more of a right to add canon to the series than we do. They didn't make the games, they just translated them. 17:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's an opinion Triforce. So nothing about the Imprisoning War is true now according to you, b/c it came from NoA?? Sorry, but an opinion does not change the fact that it came from Nintendo, is an official source regardless of what some may think of it, and thus is fair to be mentioned. Link87 18:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * At the very least, I'll add the source where that came from since right now that statement doesn't have any references. Dany36 18:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you talking about/ The IW didn't come from NoA. NoJ made it. And it's not an opinion. If they say it without getting consent from NoJ, it is the same as if we said it. 18:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

All opinions again. Just b/c you give NoJ more prominence over NoA doesn't make it so? Is that also why we give NoA information more prominence here?? B/c we do you know? Simply b/c you feel NoA isn't as credible as NoJ doesn't make it so. Sorry but that's just the truth. Link87 18:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While it is indeed plausible that the Stone of Agony is Sheikah in origin, I'm thinking that it should just be mentioned in the theories section. Zelda.com is hardly a reliable source. They said that there was only one Link up until TWW came out, and still say that ALttP and MM star the same Link. They also treat Koholint Island as a real place instead of a dream world. Heck, just look at our own article for Zelda.com to see all the mistakes they've made. Ganondorfdude11 22:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, regardless of how often Zelda.com updates their site, it is an official source and confirms the stone to be a companion to the other two. The information has been there for years. Therefore it's fine the way it is. Dany went ahead and took a step further to source it, so that should be the end of it. And for the record guys, see  for the real reason this disruption was instigated. The stone is fine where it is, but there were ulterior motives by the original complainer, who has been known to fabricate wild theories with no sources at all to back them up and has scattered them throughout their article on the Sheikah. Link87 23:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry man, but I'm not taking your theories, I'm just showing the fancy and useless they are, and that is only published in my user page… But I apologize, I will take that out if you feel offended or if you say I'm stealing something. Again if your going to believe something based on Zelda.com then I'm no more "wild" theorist than you are. Also, I believe you should let your companions decide if that should go in or not, it is not about what I said anymore. TheNewSheik 22:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion is closed, as the true intent of this distraction has been seen. Your theories have no source period from what I've read of the ZP article, and the least that can be said for this case is that an official source does exist. Some of our most senior admins agree that if it is not controverted by anything, it is able to be used as a source. So do yourself a favor, go back to your wiki where you belong, and do something constructive there. This is Zelda Wiki, not ZP, and we have better and more important things to do than to waste on frivolous complaints from users of the other wiki with ulterior motives. And for the record, a perfect example, as taken from the Bongo Bongo section of their page: "This man was supposedly a Dark Interloper during the Hyrulean Civil War who was executed for his alignment in the conflict." Now if that isn't a wild theory with no real source or evidence to back it up, I don't know what is. Link87 22:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We aren't writing a bible, or even try to convince any one this IS an OFFICIAL Sheikah Item. All we are doing is documenting the info from Nintendo. As long as we have a source for disputed aspects people can weigh its merits themselves. Chris and I talked about it before and I told him that without any manner of a source connecting it to the Sheikah I wouldn't allow it to go into this article. The Trinity of Truth is a user piece of work, and as such nothing in is meant to be taken as canon, nor the view of ZW as a whole. We just add them up bc we think they are nice reads and would interest our viewer base. Even you TNS would be able to submit a draft for the staff to decide if we'd present that here. 03:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, my thoughts exactly Ax. We've established a source for the information, and the Trinity of Truth is in the proper theory section, which follows standard procedure. And that's that. Link87 04:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)