September 20th, 2019 🏝️ Wiki Weekly #23! ⛵

Link's Awakening for Nintendo Switch just released!
We've listed pages that need updating, think you're up for the task? Take a look!

Latest Announcements

User talk:Christopher/Archive 2

From Zelda Wiki, the Zelda encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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)
Please stick to this. :/ You're declaring an edit war with me, and not even bothering to check out the discussion page or even bothering to read what I revised. It looks like you're auto-undoing everything I do with no reason to cater to your views. Death Sword 19:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, an admin undid what you did before too, b/c there is nothing wrong with someone else's theory points being shown if they sound plausible and have something to back them up. We don't cater solely to you either, please understand this. Mandi even undid what you did with it before too, so please refrain from starting an edit war over it. Link87 19:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I just disproved it, by the way. So now it's just a faulty comparison. I hope we can both be good sports about this. I didn't mean to be rude or anything, but not being listened to for like a week's worth of conversation does that to a person.

Since this is all over, we can be friends, right? Death Sword 06:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Death Sword, you have neither proven nor disproven anything, it's a theory based on the similarity of the blades, nothing more. There is no real way to say one way or the other if they are the same kind of blade or not, merely that they are of similar design. So we'll have to agree to disagree on whether or not the theory is proven or disproven by a mere picture.
That said, of course we can be friends. I never considered you an enemy, lol. We're both passionate fanatics of the series, that makes us friends, not enemies. Link87 02:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said from the beginning, it was never a theory. It was faulty evidence for a theory. I debunked the evidence. You said the blades were the exact same. I said they were not. I proved my hypothesis. This particular bit of evidence is disproven, not the theory it belonged to. Also, I meant to ask you, did you seriously think we were talking about the sword at first? Because I wasn't. Death Sword 22:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said they were the exact same, I said they were similar to the point of looking almost the same. And yes, it was part of a theory all along, which is why I said I don't understand your persistence over something that has no relevance here. The blades are of similar design, but one is old and cracked and who knows what else. And yes, I thought we were talking about the blades all along. But honestly, nothing is "debunked" here b/c it's all part of a theory, and nothing more. They are similar in design, that is the whole point of that part of the theory. But as I said before, there's been enough arguing and debate about this when it's nothing. I have nothing further to add to this discussion. Link87 00:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Come on, man. :/ You're not giving my persistence enough credit. It's one thing to debunk evidence, (Because the article said they were identical) but it's another to prove to someone that they said something.

"But that aside, I see no real differences in the blades of the two swords, b/c they really do look identical down to their markings."

You said that during the argument. I retain this stuff, mang. You don't even know. Death Sword 03:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a point to furthering a discussion Chris doesn't want to have. I'm going to think of it as borderline harassment. I'll look at the state of the article as it is now and make changes as I see fit. Should you want to add/remove anything tell me or another admin here. User:Axiomist/sig 04:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much Axiomist, I am indeed tiring of this pointless discussion. Nothing has been proven or disproven, and the blades remain of similar design and style nonetheless. I am done with this discussion and I have nothing further to add to it, it has resulted in nothing but pointless argument and proof/disproof of nothing really. Any further comments on this topic can and should be considered harassment, which can be reported. Link87 13:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on. I'm just discussing the stuff after. It's like those dudes who box each other, and even though they hit each other in the face so many times, they laugh it off later. "Remember that punch? You totally messed me up, man." Stuff like that. I won't discuss further (No offense, but it kinda' feels like brick-wall conversation) but I'm just throwing it out there. I mean no harm. Death Sword 23:23, 26 August 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)

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 :) User:Adam/sig 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... User:Adam/sig 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:
Quote1.png 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. Quote2.png
— Rauru in Ocarina of Time
User:Adam/sig 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?User:Mandi/sig 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.User:Mandi/sig 04:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Sign in, let's discuss the GoT page so we don't step on each other toes. User:Axiomist/sig 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 User:Axiomist/sig 20:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hyrule Page

A group of us Admins and Bureaucrats decided that the Hyrule page was extremely oversized, and I'm disappointed that rather than cut down on what you added back, you added back everything and made it even more large. As an Administrator of this Wiki, it is not only my right, but my duty to ensure the quality of every page, and if you can't make a page better while editing it, don't bother editing it at all. Every edit should work towards improving it, not "oh it's getting worse but it'll get super awesome eventually" type stuff. The only reason I don't obliterate the page again is because it'd start an edit war, thus requiring us to Protect the page, and then it would never be improved.

Next time, make your stuff in a word document and get it ready to go. The size of that page is ridiculous, and if it's not acceptable in a few days, expect the same sort of wiping of massive amounts of content to occur. I don't know if I'm doing the right thing by letting it slide, but I'll let you get it "fixed" before I take any further action. Good luck. --Xizor 10:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

First, you're goofy if you think this can all be done in just a short amount of time. This is a long process that has to be done carefully to meet standards, and you cannot rush us in this effort, it's a lot of work for just a couple of people to do. Do you even have any idea what article we're talking about??? It's HYRULE! The place where over 80% of the series takes place, of course it's going to be long, and if you think for one second it's going to be short you're kidding yourself. Zeldapedia's got a long one themselves, but by nature it's going to be one of the longest articles on the wiki, I would hope someone in your position would have realized that long ago. We will be working to make things detailed and yet concise, but you've got to be reasonable here, and everything you just said is not even close to that.
Second, I'm even more amazed at the lack of thought in your first statements: how can we cut down anything when you take it upon yourself to just wipe it?? That's an oxymoron and makes no sense whatsoever, so I'd be more careful about what you say if I were you.
Third, we're doing a heck of a much better job here than you or anyone else that's been complaining about has, you haven't done anything period. And if you don't like the way we're doing it, then as I told the other complainers, do it yourself. If you're not doing anything to help in the construction however, I must contest your "right" to criticize anything about what we do in the development of the article. We'd greatly welcome your assistance in actually building the article, not tearing it down though.
Actually Xizor, it's you admins and bureaucrats that should step aside and let us that are actually doing work do just that, work. You've been happy up to this point to just kick back and not do a thing with this article at all for over a year, and you say to fix it up "as we see fit", yet you criticize and are picky about what you want. And let me tell you, what you want and what some of the other admins want are two different things. I've been getting requests that they actually be more detailed. I understand what you're saying, and it's an excellent idea to focus solely on how the plots of the games affect Hyrule itself, but for God's sake don't get in our way until we're done and we can all discuss what we want to edit out together. You act as if you've actually been doing something to help with it when you haven't, just like some of the others I'm sure you're talking about, they're the same open-mouth-insert-footers that tried to criticize me but backed off when I told them that if they didn't like it to do it themselves. I don't see any of you doing anything to help those of us that are actually working on it but complain and get in the way, so if that's all you're going to do rather than actually help us with it, then get out of our way and let us do our job. You've let this article sit for over a year, and you're just now showing interest in it when someone is actually doing something with it. It will be quality, so I will thank you not to criticize its quality before it's complete. And just because you're an admin doesn't give you the right to abuse those powers either, nor does it to the others that have been all-talk-no-do. I respect all of you and have nothing against any of you, but for you to criticize us for actually working on this when it's been sitting for over a year with no work on you guys' part smacks of hypocrisy. Link87 13:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in like this, but I'd like to remind everyone on how the Sacred Realm page looked when it had been sitting there for over a year (the Great Flood is also a good example of this). Yes, at first we did have some problems with Chris because the ALttP section was mainly a summary, but we talked about it in a civilized way, and look where that page is now: a page that is worthy of being a Featured Article. It didn't get that way by threatening the ONLY writer that bothered to take up the task of rewriting the page, because that doesn't help anything or anyone. So I say we all relax, let Ganondorfdude and Chris do their own thing, and if once they're finished people think that there are still issues with the article, then we can talk about it before any hasty and big decisions are made. Also, Hyrule is a place that has been in almost every Zelda game, so we can't expect this page to be minimal. I'd say that, once each Appearances section has been developed, it should even be larger than the Sacred Realm and Triforce page. That's just how it is because, let's face it: we could write a book about Hyrule, so let's not focus too much on the length of the article, but instead of the quality. Yes, it will be long, but I can pretty much assure everyone that everything in that article will have something to do with Hyrule, much like everything on the Sacred Realm page deals with...well, the Sacred Realm. So let's all relax before we start more silly arguments on a project that's going to take a while before it's finally done.
Also, sort of off-topic, but Chris, I can assure you that today I'll get the references done for Earth Temple (things are looking a bit more relaxed now, haha), and as always, you can count on my help with the sources once the Hyrule article is all done and finished. Dany36 15:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much Dany for your understanding and your patience, it is appreciated. We will be continuing work with the article and we will do our best to be detailed but to the point where we can. And I am very grateful that you understand and grasp the scope of just what we're dealing with here, that it is Hyrule for goodness sake and that it will by nature be one of the longest articles perhaps on the entire wiki. It will take time, work and patience, and yes we will need your help with references when we are done. I'll keep you posted as the project develops, and any constructive input is welcome, as is any help at all in the development process.
And that's great to hear about the Earth Temple article Dany, it will finally have the finishing touch when you work your magic with the references. ;) And thanks once again as always, you're always wonderful to work with. Link87 15:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the locations and landmarks section of the Hyrule article just seems to be a wall of text. We do not need a large amount of plot summary to describe each and every landmark in Hyrule, and it eventually becomes redundant. Use things like < br > tags to make the pictures line up instead of just trying to pad out the length of the paragraph to make it fit the picture. The article is already so long we've had to split it into subpages. Ganondorfdude11 21:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Ganondorfdude, none of what I wrote in my estimation is "redundant", but merely enough detail to space the pictures correctly. And the way you're doing these looks out of place with the rest of the article. We didn't do the others that way, and you're not adding nearly enough detail to some of these sections. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree there. But as the bulk of the writing has been coming from me, I think I ought to have a say-so in what's kept and what's removed as well, not just you. I agree that the article is getting long, but I'm afraid that we all knew that from the beginning, given the topic being discussed. And by nature, an article of this magnitude is going to be long, there's no real way around that. We can work to trim down what we can, I agree with those efforts, but at the same time we have to keep some consistency with how we've put the entire section together. I have tried to keep the appearances of the different locales down to one sentence per appearance, but as seen in Hyrule Castle, even that is long due to the number of appearances it has made. So bottom line: please consult me if you have reservations about what I've written and we can work together to discuss what needs to remain and what can be cut. I am doing the best I can to write the subsections as concisely as possible, but we cannot just make one or two sentences per locale, there's no meat to the bones then. If we're going to use breaks, we should have done that to start with, but seeing as we've come all this way into it without them, it seems out of place to start now. However, I am open to any ideas that can shorten some things and make the article more concise and to the point. However, it's hard to determine what everyone would like to see or how much detail to include when nobody has given feedback on how far they would like us to go. Link87 03:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

New image added to the Great Flood article

Hey, Chris! I noticed that you uploaded a drawing of Link and Ganondorf battling at the end of The Wind Waker. The picture's nice and everything, but unfortunately we don't really allow Fan Art being uploaded to an important article such as Great Flood (or at least, I don't THINK we do). The new section you added is fine and everything, but I'm afraid the art is not going to be able to stay. Hopefully you'll understand our reason behind this, since if we allow one piece of fan art to stay at an article, then people will soon think it's ok to do so (not to mention we have to get the artist's permission to use it on our Wiki anyway). Thanks! Dany36 17:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If that's how it must be, that's how it must be. I understand what you're saying, though I do think some policies could be put in place to allow certain images of certain quality. The image is also featured on the main page as well, another reason why I thought most of you approved of it anyway. But as I said, if that's how it must be, that's how it must be. On the other hand, I do have an idea to replace the picture though, the one I had intended to use originally in fact. I will show you what it looks like in a moment. Link87 17:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh...whoops. I already replaced it with one. Sorry! It's sort of the same thing, except the official picture (unless you had another one in mind?). And the reason that image is on the front page is because the news that several Zelda sites post get featured in the main page of the Wiki page, so it's not necessarily saying we approve of that picture, it just happened to be featured on another Zelda site. Also, I'm gonna take this opportunity to ask...are you done with the Hyrule page? I'm just wondering since I'd like to get started on the references and such, so, yeah. ;p Dany36 17:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Lol, you read my mind, that's the exact image I was going to use, but I thought I'd get the full image and put it in, so I hope you won't take offense at that. It's the same image, just shows the background of water better. And we are about halfway done with the Hyrule page, so here's what we can do: let me finish up with the Twilight Princess section, and as soon as I am done with it, you can start the sources for everything from the beginning all the way through the "Appearances by Game" section. That would be about halfway I'd say. The "Minor Appearances" and "Locations and Landmarks" sections are still under construction, but anything besides those you can go ahead and start with. And again, thank you so much for offering to help with those, this article's been a bit overwhelming, lol. Link87 17:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Notice

I've been sitting on the sidelines here and I've noticed a pattern. You seem to be highly protective of the pages that you are working on. And you tend to revert edits to those pages that you did not have something to do with. You have complained that no one was editing these pages, but now that they are you are basically claiming the articles as your own territory. I feel I again must stress that no one owns articles on this wiki and all articles are open to edit by anyone. I know you say you know this, but your actions speak differently than your words. This creates a source of hostility between you and other users. It's disruptive, harassing behavior and it would not be responsible for us as staff to let it continue. Consider this a warning. If I see this kind of behavior from you again, I'll have no choice but to put a ban in place lasting anywhere from a day to a week, depending on how you behave. I do hope it never comes to that, and I certainly hope you don't want that either. But the rules exist for a reason and no one is above them. Calm down and behave, and then we can forgo a messy banning.User:Matt/sig 07:24, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

Well we'll have to agree to disagree Matt, b/c I'm the one that has been trying to calm things down between Ganondorfdude11 and myself, or perhaps you didn't notice that. I'm the one that called for a time out to try and talk outside of the article. He was disrupting work I was doing concurrently with the article, and I asked him to quit reverting my work until I was done with it and we could both talk about what to keep and what not to keep. But once again you obviously didn't read through our messages, and I could care less about hostility, b/c I'm not here to be Mr. Popular like some, I'm here to work and yes, I am protective of pages I have worked on when I feel they've been undermined for no good reason. So I could care less about your "warning", b/c unless I've done something off the wall, you can't do anything. Do I like speaking this way? No, not at all, I have great respect for all of you, but I will not be bullied either. So I would try to keep from overstepping my bounds if I were you, as your rhetoric clearly does. And unless you are helping with the article or offering feedback on what you'd like to see in it, you really don't have much room to talk. I tried to get feedback from all of you on how far you'd like us to go in the article's details and you offered nothing, so unless you have some advice about details you'd like to see in the article, I think that leaves you with little room to criticize anyone that's actually working on it. I don't want to create enmity between us or anyone else, but I will not be bullied either, even by admins who threaten things they know they can't legally do. So consider this my warning: try and block me for no legitimate reason, and you will receive no further writing or work from me, EVER. We'll see how far that gets you with articles like Hyrule that have been dormant for months or years, which I have been planning to overhaul as well. But I give that as MY warning, that if you try to illegally block me for something that isn't true and when you've clearly shown bias, I will never again do any work for this wiki henceforth. I do not want it to come to that and I do have great respect for all of you, but I expect respect in return as well. Link87 14:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Trying to say we have no right to enforce the rules isn't going to get you out of trouble, it's only going to get you deeper into trouble. We do have reason and just cause to block, under "Intimidating behavior/harassment" as seen here. Trying to get out of trouble by attempting to accuse us of trying to get you personally are just going to make things worse for you and prolong the block. We can will enforce the rules. No one, certainly not you, is above the rules. Instead of taking this rationally and attempting to behave, you instead attempting to squirm your way out of trouble by attempting to deny what you did. We're not blind. We can see it. This is your last warning. Tone down that attitude. Responses like what you just put up do not help you at all and actually make your situation worse.User:Matt/sig 15:13, September 14, 2009 (UTC)
Good try Matt, but I'm not buying it. If you were going to do anything, you'd have done it already. What you're trying to do is get a bluff in on me, and I'm sorry to say that I'm not uneducated enough to fall for it. Once again, you have no power to do anything unless a REAL breach of policy has been committed, and there has been no "harrassment", there has been dialogue as is suggested in policy when users are at odds. I have been trying to converse with Ganondorfdude11 to try to work things out here, and you butted into something that did not concern you. You have also broken your own admin policy of not taking sides in an argument and remaining impartial, which I could turn you in for myself. I do not have any plans to do that, because I do respect you and have nothing against you myself. But if you continue to threaten me, you will get no cooperation from me, and if you try to illegally block me, I will no longer work for this wiki under any conditions. That is MY final warning to you: cease with the threats you know you can't carry out, and quit trying to intimidate and harass me for something that you have said nothing about to the other side. Be forewarned, the consequences of those actions you stated before would be far more damaging for the wiki and yourself. I am not the one in trouble here, you logically could be for intimidation, overstepping of bounds, showing of bias, and abuse of powers if you were to carry the threats out. You only further damage your credibility with me through actions like this. Now if you were to quit the threats and actually approach me in a civil and polite manner, as admins are supposed to do dispassionately, you would find me much more receptive to any ideas you have.
That being said, I will continue to try to work things out with Ganondorfdude11 as I have all along, and if you have anything constructive to add to our job on the article of Hyrule that would be most appreciated. However, if you're not going to do anything to help us at all, then I suggest you hold your tongue and let us work out these things and continue forward with the article. I am always willing to listen to those who treat me with respect and civility. However, threats will only damage your credibility with me and you will get no cooperation from me in that manner. I hope you can understand this, as I'm sure you'd feel the same way. So if it's all the same, let's quit with the baseless threats and get on with the job. Link87 15:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
You were given more than one warning. As I said trying to say the rules don't apply to you just makes it worse for you. You've now been blocked for a period of one week.User:Matt/sig 16:14, September 14, 2009 (UTC)
I am asking this politely Matt, please remove the block on my account immediately. This is a major breach of trust between an admin and a hard-working user. If you remove the block now, I will not take any further action against you. If you will not negotiate however, I will be consulting more open-minded admins about this issue. I have done nothing to warrant a block, you know that and so do I. If you are hoping to gain any respect from me from this, you are mistaken. I would respect you far more if you would have done as I suggested and opened a positive dialogue with me. I have tried to be civil, but I am requesting that my account be unlocked before further action is taken. I do not want this to escalate, but I will not be locked out on false grounds either without my say-so being heard. Chris87 16:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Adam, for allowing me to edit on my talk page. I do appreciate it. Now, I await verdict from those who would listen. I have respectfully requested that this unwarranted block be removed from my account so I can continue work on the project which I have been engaged in for some time and continue forward. However, I am not willing to wait out an unwarranted block, and if we cannot come to some agreement to remove it now, I am serious when I say I will leave the wiki for good. I do not want to do that as I have loved getting to help improve articles that were in desperate need of it, but I will not be treated this way either when I have broken no rules and have tried to negotiate. Link87 17:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Chris, you were given fair warning about your behaviour (as a number of other admins, myself included, have done previously). Instead of taking this onboard and cooling off, your response was to show complete disregard, even going so far as to taunt Matt. This block was entirely justified and warranted, and in no way "illegal". Threats, accusations of unfairness and pleas for revocation of the block will not help. Neither Matt, myself or any of the other admins will lift the block. When taking into account the fact that we've never had this kind of issue with another user that I can recall in over 2½ years here, you should ask yourself; is it the entire admin team here that's at fault, or you?
As you've noticed, you're now able to edit your talk page (this feature was disabled when Matt initially made the block). However, please don't allow this to become a repeat of past discussions, as continuing to argue here could lead to you making more inappropriate comments and forcing us to extend the block time. Instead I'd urge you to use this time to reflect on the way you interact with others here. You may not be "here to be Mr. Popular like some", but please bear in mind that this wiki is a community and that every user including yourself is required to behave in a civil manner. User:Adam/sig 17:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Adam, I am very grateful for you allowing me to talk on my page. And I understand what some of you are saying about respect, but have some of you always been respectful to me in return? Be honest. Was Matt polite or civil to me here? Not in my eyes, it sounded more like a bunch of threats and taking sides in an argument. Admins are supposed to remain neutral. It jaded me to see that he did nothing to tell Ganondorfdude11 the same thing. However, if this block is not removed from my account I am done here, I am sorry but I will not stand by an unwarranted block that all of you know has no basis. I am sorry to be this way, but I myself feel jaded, and that's just being honest. So you can choose to remove the block and let us work to repair relationships here, or you can choose to keep it in place and lose a committed editor. I do not want it to come to this, but I have no choice I'm afraid. I will not be treated this way when I have done nothing wrong. I don't think you could look me in the eye and tell me that I've broken any rules. I broke no rules last night when I tried to sit down with Ganondorfdude11 and have a civil conversation with him, and I broke no rules by asking Matt to address me in a more civil tone, much as you're saying to me here. With no rules broken, a block is not permissible. I have tried to negotiate this with Matt and have been cordial about it up to this point. But as I said, my word still stands as well. If none of you are willing to take what I've done for all of you into account, then I will quit for lack of appreciation. You've still yet to tell me what I've been banned for, besides telling someone I don't care for the tone they are speaking to me in and suggesting they would get better results out of me if they would talk to me more civilly. That's no crime, it breaks no policy, and it's not a blockable offense, as the heart and soul of admin policy is that they may not block users simply for personal reasons.
Now had I legitimately done something illegal, like vandalism or heckling a person without cause (legitimate harassment), I would say "Yes, I deserve to be blocked" and would wait it out. However, none of those things happened, and I was blocked for personal reasons, because Matt took what I was trying to say to him the wrong way. I am sorry for the way it came off, but I stand by belief that respect is earned, and when you don't show it to a person, they are not going to be so apt to give it to you in turn. Matt came here to my page, threatened me with no legitimate reason or breach of policy. Will I admit that I am not always the most agreeable person and can sometimes come off the wrong way? Yes, absolutely. But I am not even close to being the only person guilty of that, and that is by no means grounds for a block. If none of you are willing to stand by the code you are supposed to live by, that no admin may block a person or use their powers against a person merely for personal reasons or personal retribution, then how can any of you look me in the eye and tell me that there is any legitimacy to this claim?
Dany, I understand fully what you are saying on your talk page, and no, it is not my intention to come off as arrogant or uncaring, because I do respect other lovers of the Zelda series. However, I do not respond well to threats, and that's just me. A week-long ban is not going to change that. I am willing to give the admins time to consider their decision, but only to the end of the day, I am a very busy person, and I can occupy my time doing other things other than writing on here. I have chosen to up to this point because I have wanted to see the articles rise up out of the doldrums and actually become a good source of information. I am grateful as always to you Dany, and I am sorry it has come to this. However, since you have remained neutral and have addressed me in a civil manner, I am willing to give the admins until the end of the day to consider their decision about what they would like to do. Know this: I respect each and every one of you, you had to have done something big to get where you are and that is commendable. However, I refuse to be bullied, and I don't think any of you would want to be either. I don't think any of you could look me in the eye and tell me that I am the only one at fault here. I have been trying to have a civil conversation with Ganondorfdude11 from our work of last night, and I have been trying to open a positive dialogue with Matt. However, I am not going to let an unwarranted block pass. If the block is not removed by the end of the day, I am done here. I do not want it to be so, but I feel I have been wronged greatly here, and I will not tolerate being blocked for nothing. If we can come to an agreement to remove this block from my account by the end of the day, we can move on and continue working toward a more perfect wiki as is my hope. It is up to all of you. I will let my work and accomplishments speak for themselves. None of you can say that I've done nothing for all of you. I gave you the Sacred Realm, I rewrote the Great Flood, I did a complete overhaul of Labrynna, and many more. I have been involved in a mammoth project with Hyrule, help has been very thin. I could be doing a lot of other things with my time besides these things, but I choose to come here to work on these articles because I want to give the wiki something to be proud of. But if this cannot be resolved today, I am sorry to say I am done. I will leave that up to you and hope that you will not drive away a committed and hard-working user. My mind is made up though: if none of you are willing to return all the favors I've done for this wiki and for all of you, then I am done here. Link87 17:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't fully agree with the block either, nor can I find the reasoning behind it. But I can't be the rogue admin and unblock you on my own. Now I'd rather you didn't leave the wiki entirely. However I'll understand if you do. Now bear in mind that I've exhausted all of my influence among the staff to get them to allow the work on Hyrule to go without any of us trimming it up immediately. I've gotten them to agree to wait until you and Ganondorfdude11 finished, then we could remove any redundant statements, phrases etc. I know that you've taken previous advice given to you by trying to work with him, when you were accused of not using teamwork. So there's been compromises on all parts. I was hoping you'd take my suggestion and contact GD11 off the wiki for article discussions and such. The fact that the disputes were so public may have been what caused them to be so overeager to tempban you. My apologies that this has happened to begin with. Keep in touch. User:Axiomist/sig 00:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)