User talk:Christopher-gpuser/Archive 1

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)


 * Well I'm sorry, I can't help it that I don't always see everything the first time. I'll try my best, but it's no guarantee ever. So sorry, but everyone does it and you'll just have to learn to live with it. Link87 17:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am simply following how Mandi told some others what to do. And the last line is offensive to me. I won't do nothing because I do not run this place, only help it, but if I feel I'm insulted again, I will discuss this with a few people. All I asked was you to try and use the Preview button; is that too hard?? I don't want this to be a war or nothing between us. 22:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, I did nothing of the sort to "offend" you, but you are very much offending me at the moment. I find some of the things you are saying to be in an offensive manner as well, so the same goes for you as well bud. I don't want there to be any hard feelings between us, but you could tone it down too. I already said I would try my best to keep that in mind from now on, what more do you want? I'd like to keep things civil between us, but I will return offensiveness with offensiveness if you employ it against me as well. That being said, this discussion is closed. Link87 12:15, 10 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)

Talk Pages
Could you please keep your conversations in one place? If someone asks you something on your page, reply on your page. If someone asks you something on another page, reply on that page. Because all the admins keep a close eye on the recent changes page. We can see that you replied just fine. 17:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'm so sorry, please forgive my ignorance of how it was a crime to post a single person's reply on their own page rather than my own. I understand what you're saying and will keep it in mind, but I think it's very stupid to make such an issue of it as there is no rule for it. Link87 17:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, don't worry, I made the mistake, too. XD But the reason to keep conversations in just one Talk page is so that people won't have to keep jumping back and forth when replying. Keeps things cleaner and stuff. ;) Dany36 17:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that now, but still it doesn't take a lot of ranting about it to relate that. Link87 18:22, 9 June 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)