User talk:Midoro


 * Archive 1



You deleted all of my work :(
Dude... I stayed up all night last night (a week or two ago) updating the wiki and creating wanted pages to help everyone out, and instead of a thank you most of my hard work was deleted :(

2 of the 3 "wanted pages" I made got deleted. One of them being Lorulean Knights, wich was understandably merged with Lorule Soldiers... but you cut out everything I wrote on that page. Could you at least preserve the information I spent time to put on that page when you merged it? It wasn't arbitrary stuff. And the Ghost Soldiers page didn't need to be deleted. I think that the ghost variant of soldiers that appear in Twilight Princess (wich are the same as the Hyrule Warriors ones as they are both ghosts of deceased Hyrule Soldiers) was a needed page.

I spent hours and effort making those pages, and within seconds and no effort you deleted them.

I can understand you deleting my stuff if it was vandalism (which it most definitely was not), if it was inaccurate (all the things I posted were accurate to their respective games, look at them again if you don't believe me). But my work was legit. The only reason I see you deleted my stuff is because you felt it was all arbitrary but I have to disagree, I feel alot of people would find my info useful and I helped the Zelda Wiki Comunity out by making "wanted pages".

Kinda hurts :(

I'd appreciate if you could restore some of my hard work so I don't have to feel like I wasted 5 hours of my life staying up late and trying to be a helpful community member. I understand you had to merge Lorule Knights and Soldiers, but at least keep most of my original article present in that merge.

And a 'thank you' once in a while would be nice... :(

Editorguy117 (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all, please do not comment back on my talk page archive. That's supposed to be an archive for old talk page messages. Please respond back on this page.


 * I understand that you're disheartened by the changes. But also keep in mind that this wiki strives for quality work. What I merely did with those edits was to rework them to be more up to date with the wiki's quality standards and kept what would be useful for the wiki. I admit that some edits and pages were removed, but only because they were deemed unnecessary for the wiki. But most of your edits are still technically there, they were not removed. Merely they were updated. If I wanted to actually remove entire changes, I would have undid the edits.


 * Again, I know you're disheartened by all this. But please also understand that this is the nature of how all wikis work. All pages on the wiki are subjected to change and removal of sections, or sometimes even entire pages. Believe me, I've had work done before in other wikis that would be drastically changed or removed as well. -The Goron Moron (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Pakkun
KrytenKoro (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * For god sake. All I did was ask you to please WAIT for my sandbox work to be FINISHED. Because it obviously wasn't. That was why I reverted it. There is no need to take this all personally. -The Goron Moron (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Just as a notice, since you've posted your version I went ahead and corrected some stuff that was from unreliable sources -- the Zelda Amiibo thing has been debunked by KT, and whatever translation of Aonuma's post that said the TP pack would have multiple weapons is incorrect, as the official site specifies only one. I just wanted to make it clear that this isn't meant to be an attack on you, as I realize now that I could have used a more polite tone in my edit comments.KrytenKoro (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * the new weapon -could- be zeldas, tho, since there will be a new weapon type, its just not gonna be amiibo based.KrytenKoro (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Eh there's also the Zelda facebook page. But I guess it's just better to wait for the pack to come out. -The Goron Moron (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that too. Based on the way they worded it, it seems more likely it's the "1 new weapon" that zelda.com talks about -- that might even explain why people thought the Zelda amiibo gave the weapon.KrytenKoro (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It says "a new weapon for Zelda". That implies she will be getting a new weapon. -The Goron Moron (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, yes, right, that's what I'm saying. It's possible that whoever thought the zelda amiibo gave a unique weapon heard about the new weapon for zelda, and thought they were the same, is what I'm saying. Basically, I agree with you.KrytenKoro (talk) 05:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That Facebook is the official Zelda Facebook page, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't mix that up. The wording, again "for", suggests that this would be a type of weapon for Zelda the character. But it's whatever, it's just better to wait for the actual patch. -The Goron Moron (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait. Saw this this, pretty sure Zelda is getting a new weapon. -The Goron Moron (talk) 07:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm not arguing with you, I'm not disputing the facebook page. I'm saying that it's possible the fansites that reported about the zelda amiibo may have heard fragments of the Dominion Rod thing, and got it confused with the info that the Zelda amiibo would unlock a weapon -- not catching that the amiibo unlocks a random weapon. All I was trying to say is that, yeah, as you just saw, just because the zelda amiibo thing was debunked doesn't mean Zelda's not getting a new weapon, since it could be part of the vanilla DLC. Just trying to mend bridges here and clear things up.KrytenKoro (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Minor Edit on "The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask 3D" from December 3, 2014
[Your message] ".... Great Britain is part of Europe. And I've heard no word of it coming out in America too?"


 * I have been discussing it with a few friends lately who're usually always up-to-date with stuff like this. It hasn't been announced yet, but from what we know, it's very likely to happen. I'll be looking for further information to see what I can find. I'll be sure to let you know if we find out anything else.

-- 18:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Unless there is official word regarding an American release, then there is no reason to assume that it will happen. -The Goron Moron (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Wizzro
I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't trying to tell the guy that he was wrong, just that the way he went about it (telling us we can't put up a claim because gfaqs disagrees with it) wasn't really valid, especially since we already had started a community discussion about it. I hope that wasn't the wrong thing to say?KrytenKoro (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not so much about the debate. When I look at the Wizzro costume, honestly, there is nothing about Freezard that even vaguely comes to mind other than they're both white, and I'm a bit surprised that some people even came to that conclusion. It's much more obviously intended to bare a resemblance to the TP Big Poes. Wizzro's hands and eye are even blue in that, much like the Big Poes. But even then, people are getting a little too caught up over what the costumes /might/ be based on, and in the end, it doesn't really matter. That is why I reverted it. It barely resembles Freezard, and it shouldn't be considered as one. -The Goron Moron (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Vandal
Linkfan101 has been vandalizing the Hyrule Warriors page with disingenuous edit comments, indicating that they know what they are doing rather than it being an accident or first experience with a wiki. One of their edits was clearly trolling.KrytenKoro (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. He's been already blocked. -The Goron Moron (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit War
Based on your post on Ixbran's page, I'm not sure we communicated what actually happened correctly.


 * 1) Ixbran posted the element sourcing a video (which was eventually discovered to be a bad source)
 * 2) Other editors came in and removed the element without providing sources
 * 3) I reverted them as Ixbran had provided a source, and asked them for a source
 * 4) An edit war occurred between me and these other editors (with me ceasing to edit to avoid exacerbating the edit war any further on my part).
 * The other editors provided a source demonstrating that the source Ixbran had used was unreliable.

I want to make it very clear, for the record, that Ixbran did not edit war about Tingle's element. His involvement was only in using an unreliable source, and the only reason I'm mentioning the edit war at all was because it resulted after that unreliable source was used. Ixbran absolutely did not violate the edit war policies. I personally approached edit warring, although I believe I made sure to stop editing when it became clear that conflict was occuring. Does this clarify things?KrytenKoro (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I wasn't just talking about the edit war over Tingle, but other occasions as well. Either way, I do not wish to see further edit wars between any parties, and I would rather that the both of you stop arguing. But I thank you for the clarification. 23:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)