User talk:Christopher-gpuser

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)

Sacred Realm pictures
Hey! So I've been doing some searching for Sacred Realm pictures we could add to the article, and here are some I've found: Anyway, that's all I have for now, but I'll make sure to keep looking. Dany36 19:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This post has some good ones.
 * From the Lanayru story in Twilight Princess.
 * Same with this one.
 * And this one. I'm not too convinced about the last three, since I know there are better images where Lanayru's story shows more of the Sacred Realm...I just gotta find them.
 * Maybe this image could be of some use. Possibly add it to the section talking about the spoiling of the Sacred Realm?


 * Hey Dany! Thanks a bunch, I will take a peek and try to procure some images from these sources for the article. I have also added some new sections to the article concerning the Temple of Light as well as the Dark World as well. Take a peek at those if you get a chance and let me know if you think any changes would be good for them. Meanwhile, I will try to deal with the pictures now that I have some sources to work with. Thanks so much! Link87 19:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk page management
Hi there. I noticed you just removed a lot of stuff from your talk page, which is fine and often necessary. However, it's generally considered better practice to archive old discussions rather than deleting them; that way, your talk page stays clean and tidy, but you don't end up deleting comments written by other users. There's a template for the task here, just let me know if you have any problems using it :) 18:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah I see, well thank you for the link Adam. I will definitely do that in future, and for the reasons you stated, which when thinking about it is logical and worthwhile. And thanks for giving me some directions, I'm terrible with coding or webpage work (or at least so far anyway, hoping to improve in time). I can do text and writing just fine, but I wish I was half as talented at computer programming or webpage work. Anyway, yes thank you for mentioning that, and I will definitely adhere to that henceforth.


 * On a side note, when you get a chance, check the Sacred Realm page and let me and Dany know what you think of it now. It should be nearing completion, as I helped take care of most of the text and Dany has helped me seek out pictures and has done all the citing of sources all by herself, which I am proud of her for. ;) Link87 18:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I went ahead and archived the deleted content for you, hope you don't mind. I'll definitely have a look through the article when I get a chance, just have to psych myself up first though since it's now a pretty hefty read... 18:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the compliments, but I'm actually a girl, haha. XD I guess my username gives the wrong impression at first, huh... Dany36 19:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't mind at all, in fact I thank you for it. That way we have records of these things, which is always the best policy when thinking about it. And thank you for taking the time to read through the article, as I know it may be a bit tedious to read in its entirety, but hopefully it will be interesting enough to hold interest now! ;) Link87 18:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh God Dany, I'm so sorry, really, lol. Well now I know at least, but I do apologize for the mix-up. I just thought from your username that perhaps you were a guy. But I meant every word I said too btw. ;) Link87 19:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Haha, no problem at all! It's not the first time it happens, so it's not your fault at all. XD Dany36 00:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well thank you, and I am very glad to work alongside such an insightful woman. :) Link87 00:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Great Flood pictures
Hey, Link87! I was thinking that maybe you could put some of the pictures that are shown in the The Wind Waker introduction in the Great Flood article. You don't have to use all of them, but putting them in their respective section would make the article even neater. Here are some of the pictures:

TWW introduction pics

Let me know if they're of any help. I'll continue adding the references to the Great Flood page meanwhile. :D Dany36 19:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The source you gave me was a great help Dany, and the pictures are now complete for the Great Flood article. Take a peek at it when you get a chance and let me know what you think. Link87 13:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow! I just checked out the article, and you once again did a great job with the placement of the pictures. I'm glad the link I gave you was of help, and we now have yet another page to be proud of... Keep up the fantastic writing skills! Hopefully we'll see this as a Featured Article in the near future. :) Dany36 21:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well thank you very much Dany, I really appreciate it. And thank you very much for the outstanding work on the references. I will be continuing work on Labrynna too, and when I'm done with it, I will contact you about the references. It's a great team effort, and I'm glad I can be a part of making the wiki more appealing. ;) Link87 23:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem! It's always a pleasure to work alongside others to make the Zelda Wiki even better. ;) I was actually gonna start with the references for the Labrynna article yesterday, but I kind of got distracted...whoops. :P But you can bet that I'll add as many sources for it as I can, though I'm not sure if I will be able to put up as many since I've only beaten OoA once, so my memory of exact quotes isn't as impressive as OoT, TP, TWW, ALttP, etc. I'll try my best! Dany36 01:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds great! Well if you need help with quotes, let me know. I have beaten OoA several times as well as OoS. I really do appreciate the help with the references too Dany, especially with such an expansive article as one of the country articles. Link87 01:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Light Temple Location/Temple of Power
Ouch, fabrication is such a strong word. I'd love to make a brilliant stand and be all like, "HAH, you were so wrong, the Light Temple is beneath the Temple of Time," but unfortunately you've trumped me in that I don't have a quote directly with me that can prove it. I won't be able to get my hands on the game any time soon (I'm on vacation), but it sounds like you can. I'm pretty sure Rauru mentions the temple's location when he makes that long speech to Link after he first pulls the Master Sword. The location isn't a theory in any case; if Rauru doesn't say it, than my stating of it being underground was a misfire, because I honestly and truly believe that it is completely canon. As for the "Temple of Power," it is mentioned only once (which is probably why you can't remember it), by Shiek in her first talk with Link directly after Rauru's. She's telling Link about how Ganondorf has taken over the five "temples of power" or something like that. Mind you, the words weren't capitalized, but they are the only collective in-game name given to the temples. I hope you don't go an dismantle all my other references to the "Temples of Power" before looking it up; I'd do it myself (it is my memory we're dealing with, after all), but I won't be able to for about two months. All the same though, please don't go calling it a theory; I do have some pride, after all, and it's all a matter of canon vs. incorrect fact, not a theory. But I'll give you credit, I didn't remember those lights; but then again, I don't really believe they are to be compared anyway, considering how nobody complains about the Lost Woods and Lake Hylia being in vastly different locations each game... Two points for the "private chambers," though, I love that description.--Dreyfus 11:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This discussion would be more relevant at Talk:Temple of Light, but anyway... Just to clarify with information from the OoT text dumps, there is no mention of "temple(s) of power" whatsoever, and the quote from Rauru is as follows:
 * "I am Rauru, one of the ancient Sages... Ages ago, we ancient Sages built the Temple of Time to protect the entrance to the Sacred Realm... This is the Chamber of Sages, inside the Temple of Light... The Temple of Light, situated in the very center of the Sacred Realm, is the last stronghold against Ganondorf's evil forces."

- Rauru in Ocarina of Time


 * 12:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to say it like it is and just like Adam said: there is no mention of these statements or titles anywhere and no evidence to support them, and they have no place in the mainstream part of an article without that evidence. They can be placed in theory sections, but only if there is credible evidence to back them up. And in this case I'm sorry to say there is no evidence at all, as Adam pointed out. I apologize if the wording seems strong as I respect you as a fellow Zelda fan and colleague, but I have played Ocarina of Time way more times than I could count, and I never once heard any of these things you're saying. I even remember much of the game verbatim, that's how many times I've played it. Sheik never calls them "Temples of Power," he calls them "the five temples...one in a deep forest...one on a high mountain...one under a vast lake...one inside the house of the dead...one inside a goddess of the sand". Rauru never once states that the Temple of Light is beneath the Temple of Time, he makes it clear that it resides in the Sacred Realm. Link87 12:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough for me. Though it really makes me wonder where I got that then...--Dreyfus 12:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's all good Dreyfus, we all can make mistakes with text from the games or the like so it's not like it hasn't happened before. But one thing we do go by here, as Dany36 has been wonderful about in working with me to make sure of, is that as much of the information as possible in the articles have references and evidence to back up all our statements so we have the highest credibility as a source of Zelda information. Perhaps you may have read something from one of the Japanese versions of the manuals, which are known to differ from the American ones, which seem to be the more widely-accepted versions. Sometimes you'll run into different titles in the Japanese versions of the games, so I'm guessing perhaps that you may have gotten some of these ideas from there. But never once have I heard of any of this, and that's just being honest. Link87 12:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Skype
Do you happen to have Skype? We have a Zelda Wiki chat formed on Skype and we were wondering if you would like to join? 20:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Skype is mainly text chat, too. A lot of people tend to think otherwise.


 * It'd be a great honor for me Mandi, I would be delighted. I can download it and set it up. How do I coordinate it to chat with all of you on it once I have it downloaded?? I got it downloaded now, but I need to know the name of the group so I can add it. I searched for Zelda Wiki, but couldn't find the group. Is there another name that is used for it?? Link87 04:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The best way is to add an individual person. You can add me, my Skype name is Mandi151993. I'll add you to the chat. 04:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sign in, let's discuss the GoT page so we don't step on each other toes. 03:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Understood and done. Look forward to chatting with you again on Skype soon! You're a really cool guy with a lot of talent!! ;) Link87 20:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mutual ;) I keep skype open while working on the site. It's easier to talk there than on talk pages. :p 20:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Earth/Wind Temples
Yo Chris, I'm all for reverting baseless changes... But everything I wrote for the Earth and Wind Temples were not only full of back-up, but were factual. I didn't write a single thing that lacks canon back-up from the games, and I removed information irrelevant to the articles. On top of it all, I rewrote some passages to get rid of opinionated sentences and assumptions. So why'd you revert them?--Dreyfus 12:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because they were just the opposite I'm afraid. Many have placed credible theories in the trivia sections of some of the articles and reasons why people have come to believe them, and I made it clear they were not confirmed. I'm the one that took the time to completely rewrite the whole article to bring it up to speed, and some of your grammar was incorrect, so rather than have to go through line-by-line to fix those mistakes, I reverted them because there wasn't anything worth keeping really that was of consequence. This is not to say that nothing you've written has no consequence, just in this case. The articles are fine the way they are, I have been backward and forward over them to make sure of that, and I'm sure the histories of the articles will tell that. So thank you for the input, but they are just fine the way they are. And for the record, there is no bias in anything I write, I merely include what the general consensus on certain topics are and state why that is and try to work around those things. So I'm sorry to dispute your statement, but I see and write no bias in my own work. Link87 12:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about bias, but there's a difference between an opinion and fact, which is why I changed the "eerie" passage to "can be described as eerie" because some people may find it not eerie at all. But I took out the theories, and defined anything that was credible as a speculation because they were all such.  I already saw how you cleaned it; I was further cleaning it.  If you didn't like the grammar, I'll fix that.  Some of the trivia was about Fado and Laruto; on checking their articles, they had that trivia already, so I think it should be removed from the temple's.  That's the logic I used, anyway.  And I can direct you to Zephos and Cyclos to explain the logic of the Wind Temple's trivia changes.  I have to go, so I probably can't go more into that, but anything else is really for the Temple Talk anyway.  Just disgruntled that instead of just changing a few things back you did all of it.--Dreyfus 15:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the concern, but it's fine the way it is. The Sages' theories are not unrelated to the temples they protect, and they were on there anyway already, I just reworded them to reflect proper grammar and more detail. There is also no mention at all in the game that Zephos or Cyclos are those for whom the Wind Temple was built, but Tingle mentions the Goddess of Wind, so that is the correct form. Bottom line though, it's all good the way it is. Link87 15:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

We need your help on this
First off we appreciate the time and thought you put into your edits. I think we'd like more such editors. But there's a few issues we hope you can keep in mind while editing.
 * - Too many consecutive changes

We get pretty bogged down with the patrolling, it seems you noticed/corrected several things in multiple edits. I'd be most grateful if you could do this less. By try catching what you want to change, and then changing it all at once instead of a new edit immediately after noticing something.
 * - Irrelevant info (aka stick to the subject!)

The back story to TWW needn't be detailed in full on each dungeon page. It sorta distracts from the article itself and the information may be best on a more relevant page.
 * - Excessively long text, without section breaks

This can be fixed with images and/or new sections. We'll try to get to that. But some concerns were raised that you may revert others contributions to these pages. I'm hoping these concerns aren't going to be an issue.
 * - Theory-like or opinion-like information mixed in with fact

Best thing to do is minimize this and place theories beneath the articles in a theory tag. I know it seems like a theory section is a blemish on the page, but it's really not. 19:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Axiomist, I understand what you are saying, however I am doing these rewrites the best way I know how, and I don't need users like Dreyfus2006 getting in the way while I'm trying to put finishing touches on the articles with his edits to my rewrites that aren't grammatically correct and don't make it flow as nicely. I don't intend to diss someone else's style, as we all have different ones. However, as I am the one that took the time to do the whole thing, I am trying to keep things flowing as nicely as possible with what I've already written. Granted I have made several consecutive edits, but there will be things that I will forget to include or that I didn't see when reviewing the articles. Also, a lot of the consecutive edits are because I work on individual sections at a time, not the whole article since it takes a lot to load the whole page's text on my computer. So I will do my best to cut down on the consecutive edits, but I can't promise that it will always be the case since there will probably be times that I'll need to add something I forgot to mention.


 * As for the long text, I have been trying to break it up a bit if you've been looking at some of my latest work. Or did Dreyfus2006 not mention that?? I reverted his edits because they were at odds in the main part of the article with what I'd already written stylistically and they told nothing new, they were just pretty much pointless edits that didn't make things flow as nicely. As for the theories, they were already in the trivia sections when I began, I just reworded them and left them to be dealt with as you guys would like, but for the sake of how they look, I only reworded them so they would be correct gramatically. If you guys would prefer they be placed differently or elsewhere, I'd like to hear it from you guys rather than here-and-there editors that have been known to give unreliable theories themselves (Dreyfus2006 was the one that integrated into articles his own theory that the Light Temple is beneath the Temple of Time in Twilight Princess for example, and it turned out there was no such evidence to support it). So I understand that as an admin it is your duty to investigate complaints, but at the same time consider the source too. I will continue work dutifully on the articles I am currently working on, and I welcome help from reliable sources such as yourself and those who edit regularly and have a firm knowledge of the series, but those that are hurt because I reverted their edits haven't been that reliable in the past and can just be in the way at times. If what they write flows nicely with everything else and has consequence, I don't mind it at all, but if it's editing just for the sake of editing, that's something else. Link87 20:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll just point out that no one owns article on here. No one owns edits. This is clearly spelled out at the bottom of every page while in edit mode.
 * "Please note that all contributions to Zelda Wiki.org are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Zelda Wiki.org:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."
 * So there will be other edits. Reverting someone else's edit just because it's not yours really doesn't help anything at all. It actually makes things worse. It would be better to improve the article at is when you edit it, fixing any grammatical problems you see, than to haunt the recent changes and article history just to make sure it is you that makes the article great. This is a team effort, not a solo mission. 20:37, August 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. This is an online wiki. It's a team effort. 20:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Christopher, it seems you've slightly misjudged our point which Axiomist detailed above. The issue is wider than just this one case, and not directly related to your discussion with Dreyfus above (although your response to his edit and comments concerned me). To clarify:
 * Multiple edits: A minor concern, more of a mild annoyance than anything. If it can be easily minimized, all the better.
 * Irrelevant info/excessive length: This is the key problem. It began way back with your additions to the Hyrulean Civil War, resumed after your return with the edits to Sacred Realm and became a continuing trend with Earth Temple. I appreciate the difficulty in looking at ones own edits in an impartial and objective way, but what we're saying is that a lot of the information you added has no direct relevance to the article's subject. Artificially bulking out encyclopedia articles with general information risks making the entire page less useful to the reader.
 * Theories and opinions: It's vital that opinion (or statements worded like an opinion) is not present, and that any theories are in a separate section and clearly backed up with sources. Otherwise the entire text is devalued.
 * Myself and the other admins are in agreement that we need to see changes from you in both points 2 and 3, otherwise we may be left with no alternative to revert future edits which are deemed inappropriate. I hope you can work with the admins and editors here, rather than against us. 20:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Matt and Mandi and Adam, sorry but I never said once that I "own" an article, I said I don't need help from those who give unreliable information and are gramatically incorrect. And I see nothing wrong with reverting unnecessary edits that put more grammatical errors in it than it is worth trying to go through and fix individually. And as far as that goes, if you'd like to do some of these yourselves, by all means go ahead. I've only been trying to get things moving on things that have been sitting here for years while nothing's been done to them at all, despite a lot of talk on their discussion pages. I want to get things moving, and if I'm the only one doing it, that's by coincidence, not because of me. But if you'd like me to step aside and let you do all these, then I will gladly do so. I've only been trying to help everyone here, but then I have some that like to throw accusations that are false and I don't see a whole lot of gratitude from very many. In fact, I think I'm more inclined than ever to just quit and let things sit for another year. Just for all this ganging-up and no thanks, I think I will do just that because all of you have grossly misjudged me and I have gotten minimal help from many of you. All I've gotten are complaints.


 * The only person that's been of any help is Dany36, and I greatly appreciate her help. If all of you would actually offer to help once in a while or would have done something with these articles a year ago when these labels were first posted on them, none of this would have to be done in the first place. By doing this though, you're driving away people that actually are trying to help get things done. I would like to continue working for the wiki b/c I like it a lot and I respect everybody here, but I am getting tired of frivolous accusations that everybody here is guilty of and no thanks for my efforts from those complaining. So sorry, but if this is all I'm going to get for my efforts, I'll occupy my time doing other things that I need to be doing that I've been compromising in order to be here to help with these articles. So bottom line, if you don't like the way I do it, do it yourselves if you think you can do better. I've seen no efforts from many of you on these articles, but I'll gladly step aside and let you do it yourselves since I'm doing such a terrible job of it. Never mind that nobody else is doing editing to them really and that's the whole reason why they've sat in the sorry state they have because of that very reason. I have enjoyed working on them, but I think it's best to just let you guys do it yourselves since you obviously think you can do better.


 * P.S. Adam, go right ahead and revert away, there won't be much to revert back to since most of the ones I've worked on haven't been touched in months or years and had little to nothing to start with. Link87 20:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You know the intent of my message wasn't to run you out, criticize, or ruin your enjoyment. I actually hoped to make it easier for you to avoid confrontations among the staff and other editors. Email or Skype me so this conversation no longer has to be public. 21:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)