User talk:Douken@legacy41958225

Note: If you send me a message on my talk page, I will respond on my talk page, not yours.

Yo

Hey there. Just noticed your creation of Bow & Arrows that redirects to Bow. Let me tell you a little story about the '&' symbol. :P The Wiki software automatically cuts everything after the '&' symbol, so "Bow & Arrow" registers just as "Bow" (just like the whole "Sword & Shield Maze" redirecting to "Sword" thing a few weeks back). So... yup. Just keep that in mind (so no one accidentally creates anything with '&' in it). --Ando (Talk) 15:03, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Also! Um. The above is actually incorrect. The new MediaWiki software update fixed the & problem. :D Just so anyone who reads it knows. --Ando (T) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering...

Since you sort of helped me fix my problem, would you like to be friends? --David ^{(T : C)} 19:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. --Guy ^(T|C) 12:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Vote

Sorry to do this, but I had to remove your vote for Gerudo. I guess you forgot, but you already voted for Pedestal of Time this month, and rules is rules! ;P —Adam ^(talk) 18:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Links with "s"

So I noticed that you've been "fixing" links that are along the lines of [[Muffin]]s by changing them to [[Muffin|Muffins]]. Just thought I'd let you know that that's actually totally unnecessary, and does little more than add extra text to clog up the page with. Seriously.
To explain, check out this link: Anjus. Notice how the "s" is part of the link? The link is still typed as [[Anju]]s, though. The MediaWiki software automatically absorbs that "s" into the link, not affecting WHERE the link takes you, only what you click. It's pretty sweet, right? RIGHT.
So now you know, and knowing is half the battle. ;) --Ando (T) 02:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it was just a habit I picked up from a prior version of wiki, and I'll stop doing it in the pages I edit. But please, don't make it sound like I was going around editing every [[Octorok]]s I saw into [[Octorok|Octoroks]] and killing the entire page by adding a dozen bytes of invisible space only apparent if you're viewing the source. --Douken 15:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, sorry, I didn't mean to sound so... I don't know, angry? rude? "you are so stupid for doing this"ish? But anyway! Yup. --Ando (T) 16:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Early Gohma

you said you saw a different pic of beta gohma. can you show me?Dragonstetraforce 23:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I meant there are several beta screenshots for Twilight Princess, not Gohma... --Douken 15:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

oh ive seen those already. but tell me if you find another gohma. p.s.: this doesnt mean ive given up on getting a beta object featured.Dragonstetraforce 20:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Vote

At least yours actually made sense. The others were nonsense. It was out of a guide. The original version is here. Any fuzziness it from that. Not me. If I reduced its size, then it might look better.Emma ^(Talk) 05:25, November 17, 2008 (UTC)

Woah, not to be insulting, but the original image kicks ass. o_o Though I suppose it still has most of the same flaws, I might not lean hard enough for a negative vote on that one... Yeah, miniaturizing it might fix the blurriness somewhat, but I guess doing that has it its own problems. --Douken 05:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You may have been right about the Link at Sea one, but I think you may have gone overboard by going and opposing almost all the other ones. You might want to reconsider. If you keep doing things like that, you're going to anger a lot of members.Emma ^(Talk) 00:18, November 18, 2008 (UTC)

I just have high standards for featured content. The images recommended don't have anything particularly interesting that sends them above their peers (except perhaps the boss-key-in-ice one. I'll probably change my vote on that now that I think about it). Until recently I've tried not to be so negative on this wiki, but when I realized I don't agree with over half the nominated images (and several of the nominated articles), I figured my voice should be heard. --Douken 13:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I really disagree with you. I can't make you do anything yet. But I ask that you remove the votes and let others decide. Voting against all of them is obviously being very negative, way too negative. I'm sure you would have voted against the Faron one too if there wasn't a notice on it.Emma ^(Talk) 17:14, November 18, 2008 (UTC)

I don't have anything against that particular image. If someone does an impressive job adding the rainbow effect and shafts of light, I'll likely vote for approval. (Without the background, it's surprisingly striking, but the current job as it is leaves out some of the better effects.) Anyway, you may see it as being negative, but I just want the best to be featured. Featured content is what people who newcomers to ZW see on the main page first, before anything. In my personal opinion, featured content should be nothing short of the top 1% (or less) this site has to offer; articles and images that exceed any and all expectations, (in case of articles, something an average user like myself couldn't expect to accomplish), not something that's on the better side, nor something that just doesn't have any obvious flaws. With this in mind, I wouldn't expect much to get through the nomination process--maybe a fifth, at best--and that reflects in my voting.

I don't appreciate that threat, by the way. --Douken 20:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Curses On The Wiki

I have brought it up with the wiki admins/general wiki staff, and we have decided that such words like those substituted for butt and such are not allowed on the wiki unless the term is being used in the correct sense. (Example: jack*** for a page about a donkey.) Please abide by this new rule, for we are now starting to get rid of such words because they are not appropriate for the wiki. We want this wiki to be appropriate for all ages. User:Austin2862/sig 01:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If such is truly the case, you're a bunch of asses. On that note, don't edit my page four times when a single preview could have done the job just fine. --Douken 01:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It is the case, ask Steve or Mel. Also, I am not the best speller, those four edits were corrections to the first part of this section, not youu userpage. User:Austin2862/sig 01:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to lul if I'm prevented from editing my own talk page as a result of this. When you refer to, "this section," it is indeed a part of my page. In case you hadn't noticed, this is indeed my (talk) page. --Douken 01:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)