User talk:TheLink7

Hello
-- TheStoneWatcher (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Throne Room
Since the "other users" are just you (meaning you're sockpuppeting), I'll not respond to that claim.

As far as "my reasoning not being justified" -- play. the. game. Not only is the Throne Room given a title at the top of its dungeon map, but it is part of a separate Dungeon Map. So, you're absolutely wrong about there being "no additional map required", because there very plainly is.

You can check it: go to Lorule Castle. Check the floors on that map. The Throne Room is not included. Go to the Throne Room. Check the floors on that map. Lorule Castle is not included.

Furthermore, as I've said each time I reverted, I specifically talked to the admins, and they said that consensus needs to be reached on the talk page before you revert the article again. Therefore, you are edit warring by reverting it, and you need to stop.

As for the claim that I am somehow damaging the image of the wiki, or setting a new precedent: bro, the only "precedent" set by my version is that if the game coding defines two areas of the game as separate dungeons, then they should be on different articles. That is far less restrictive then the rationale that is already used on this wiki. For your claim about ALttP -- if you recieve two different dungeon maps for something, then yeah, you should interpret that as being two separate areas, because that is the game telling you that they are two separate areas.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * this is harassment man, and i am going to take it to an admin if you keep it up. i am a new user, i just joined today along with a few others.  i have never even edited on this site before.  so i will thank you to stop trying to say i'm someone i'm not.  TheLink7 (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ...I responded to a post you left on my talk page. That's not-...whatever. The admins are able to easily confirm this kind of thing, I'll leave it to them.KrytenKoro (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * let them, i've no idea who the guy is. but if you treat every new user as some kind of criminal and want to check all of them out the day they join, you won't have many people who will stay here.  and even if i did know the guy you were fighting with, what difference would that make?  i am sure several of you know each other on here, should i be associating each of you with the actions of another?  i would appreciate if you would actually edit and negotiate in good faith and stop these pointless personal things with me, because i am simply here to help edit like anyone else.  TheLink7 (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "i am sure several of you know each other on here, should i be associating each of you with the actions of another?"
 * Actually, for your own elucidation, if I knew someone on here and was joining arguments on their side because they asked me to in real life, that would also be against the rules. It's called meatpuppeting.KrytenKoro (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * you'll have to forgive me man, i honestly don't know all the terms or what not yet, i am fairly new to all this. but i don't think it's very polite or welcoming to automatically assume someone new is associated with someone you don't like.  i know i wouldn't do that to someone else, especially if the person is only trying to help.  TheLink7 (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to say anymore until an admin comes in on this, but it was not an automatic assumption, and coming into a conversation to call people jerks is not "only trying to help". You have a lot of tells, bud.KrytenKoro (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * when did i ever call you "jerks" at all? i don't recall calling anyone names, i simply said i didn't think you handled the situation well.  what's the harm in a bit of constructive criticism?  i don't know what your game is, but you should really learn to understand the difference between criticism and constructive criticism.  and yes, it seems you just jumped to the assumption i was the other guy that posted, and i really don't appreciate that.  and calling an admin in just because someone noted that you could've handled the situation better?  really man?  from what i have seen thus far, that was not a crime, and i have always remained civil.  TheLink7 (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
It has become quite clear that KrytenKoro is correct. Your account has been blocked indefinitely as a result. We do not tolerate the abuse of multiple accounts, especially with the intent of creating an illusion of support. This is a community, and that's not how things work. We wish your luck in your future endeavors. 03:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)