User talk:Nerushi/Archive 1

Irrelevance
Nerushi, this is not meant to slight you in any way, but I am politely asking that you back off of trying to mix a bunch of irrelevant pieces of information that distract from the point I am trying to make, which I think to this day you still don't get. My point is this: Hyrule's major government "headed" by the Hylian Royal Family was not established until the end of the Hyrulean Civil War. Yes, the Royal Family may have previously led the entire Hylian tribe, but they obviously did not yet rule over the entire realm. Yes, Hyrule's tribes lived in peace for ages prior to this, but the government headed by the Royal Family over the entire realm did not exist. Now it is established in Ocarina of Time that the Hylian Royal Family came to power over the entire realm as a result of the Hyrulean Civil War, so there the ultimate ruling government of the entire realm was founded.

Now, let's go to The Minish Cap: Gustaf states that, at the present time of TMC, he ruled over all of Hyrule "countless ages ago". Now, common sense says Gustaf can't head a government that's not even yet established. You argue that TMC precedes OoT, but this contradiction seemingly makes that almost impossible because OoT states that the government that Gustaf would have headed was not established until the war shortly before OoT. Simply saying that Hyrule itself has been in existence long before OoT makes no difference here, it's irrelevant. The whole point is the government of the entire realm was established shortly before OoT, and TMC establishes that at some point after that founding that Gustaf headed it at one point. Now we fast-forward "countless ages" to the time of TMC: By this point, a LONG line of rulers over the entire land of Hyrule have ruled it. Now, given this information, how can you say that TMC precedes OoT? How can you say that this very long line of kings had ruled over all of Hyrule before the government of the land was even established? That establishment came as a result of the Hyrulean Civil War as said by the Deku Tree Sprout. And we only have roughly a decade between the HCW and OoT, give or take a bit. Now, how can a LONG line of kings extending "countless ages" have ruled Hyrule in just that short amount of time? It's not feasible.

Let's take an example: You argue that Barack Obama's election as POTUS occurred before the American Revolution. I say: "President Obama can't head a government that's not even established yet." If the states have not even joined to form the federal government of the United States, how can President Obama head a government over all of the states if it has not even been founded yet? He can't.

This is my entire point. Gustaf could not head a government that was not even established yet. He claims he ruled all of Hyrule countless ages before the events of TMC, but that government headed by the Hylian Royal Family was not established until shortly before OoT, so therein lies the contradiction. Now, if you want to argue otherwise despite the logic, then feel free to do so in your section concerning your theories. But do not tamper with the point I am trying to make here, as you are putting in things that are beside the point I am trying to make. I hope this helps you understand what I'm trying to get across and that you will refrain from distracting from the point I'm trying to make clear to fans about this matter. Thanks. Link87 21:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what you presented to me is what most would call fanfiction. I don't need to take your BS, and if you are not willingly to accept a non-biased perspective that I added even without removing your fluff, then perhaps I shouldn't either. It is not distraction because the points I have presented have equally much evidence as to how long Hyrule and its Royal Family have existed, as your 'unified' quote which could mean a miryad of things. You have not presented a single piece of evidence indicating that, contary to other evidence, the ONLY goverment/nation/kingdom in Hyrule history was established jus prior to Ocarina of Time. That something you completely made up as a ruse to, in your obess with disproving any game before OoT. Perhap you are in denial or something, but you are completely obessed with trying to keep out any evidence that contradicts your already flawed theory. This is evident since you removed my pieces which offered people to have a more neutral perspective, rather than your completely one-side one. As such, I will from here on just remove your THEORY/FANCTION or whatever you want to call it ( not a fact anyway ) until you back off. You can always call an admin to have them resove this for us though, I don't mind. Have a good day =) Nerushi 05:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Go right on ahead, I'll report you to the staff and have them override you since you won't listen to reason. Keep your fanfiction (precisely what your ridiculous idea regarding this is) separate from valid points that are being pointed out. I'll oppose you at every turn if you are unwilling to compromise, and don't think I won't. Any good points like that with quotes to back it up are worth mentioning, and if you continue to tamper with them I will report you. It doesn't have to come to that, just back off. You want to make counterarguments, keep them in your theory section since it's your theory you're trying to support.


 * I believe it is you that is in denial here, because I have spelled out a very good argument here backed up by facts and spelled out word-for-word for you, yet you still refuse to admit the fallacy in your theory in turn. You refuse to admit there could be error in your theory, and that gives you no credibility with me. Now, as I am not unreasonable, I have included that there are those that still do not agree with these observations, and that should be more than enough for you as a compromise, which I did to show I'm not unwilling to negotiate with you. If however you continue on the road of making trouble and refusing to compromise somewhat, I will be reporting you to the staff as inciting an edit war and removing valid information simply to keep your theory from being challenged. Link87 06:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Guys, can we stop fighting? We're here to edit Zelda Wiki.org, not rip each others' heads off. Why not discuss this stuff elsewhere?
 * In any case, since you guys are obviously in need of some neutral mediation, I'll help you there. It looks to me as if you two are having some discrepancies with theories and the like. Chris, I know you to be a theorist and that you believe theories have a place on the wiki. Nerushi, you seem to believe in the removal of theories which you find to have little support. In all actuality, theories do have a place here, even if they seem implausible. We place them on articles to tell people how certain members of the community feel about the timeline or other things. Even if there's little support in your eyes, widely believed theories should be left on articles. However, they should always be neutral. We shouldn't ever have a biased theory section. And of course, it must have a tag. If you ever see a theory section with considerable favor to one theory or another, I invite you to rewrite it, not remove it.
 * On to Chris. I'm glad to see you back, but you gotta stop the edit wars. If you have a disagreement with something someone has done, bring it up on the talk page of the article. And if you can't agree on anything, come talk to me. I'll help you work out a fair, balanced solution. That way, Mandi doesn't have to get involved and get mad :P (She's really a decent person, but since you two have bad history, she's a little biased towards you.) I've asked Mandi to abstain from involvement in disputes regarding you, as she does have a bias. I hope that you'll both try to work together and make this wiki an even better one. And remember, when in doubt, seek neutral mediation. Don't just argue. Okay? Hope to see you both aroud! 12:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Justin, I do not seek to remove theories from ZeldaWiki, I am theorist myself. This started with Chris stating his theory as a fact. I originally removed his theory because I thought it was too speculative for the article. He undid that. The second time, I added a theory tag to the article where his theory was. He undid that as well saying his theory was pure fact. Thereafter I added some other evidence suggesting otherwise to the article, for a more neutral perspective. Obviously, he undid that as well. He wanted the article to be completely one-side, and he still probably thinks of his theory as fact, even though I haven't seen anyone agree with that so far ( including some admins here ). I am completely fine with his 'theory' being in any article. But he is the one that has to understand that it is just a theory based on his interpretation of a single quote, and a incredible vague one at that. Also, he is removing fair evidence against his own theory, saying they're 'irrelevant' or 'distracting', when they're not rejecting his theory, just offering a more neutral perspective. It is also completely hilarious that he is accusing 'my' theory, when I haven't even suggested any theory at all, just evidence against his theory, such as other quotes that was completely relevant to the subject. Nerushi 13:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I thank you guys for remaining overall civil while debating this (i.e. no names were thrown, no families threatened :P), as edit discussions in general have become extremely heated in the past. Both of you have legitimate points, however, since there is no confirmed timeline, all theory must be taken with a grain of salt, and rightly so, even if it may seem incontrovertible. Thus, theories are all matters of interpretation, regardless of how certain they seem to be and how many sources one has, as you touched on Nerushi. So I agree with Justin here, lets leave it up (as I believe it represents an interesting look on the topic), just change it so that it represents a nuetral standpoint. We good? =) 14:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Justin, Cip: I thank both of you for coming forward and helping to mediate, it shows that you do care about the wiki and about us users in general, and I agree with all that you have said. I made sure to place statements in the sections making it clear no concrete claims can be made due to lack of actual official confirmation. And yes, we're good here. I just want to make sure everyone knows this information so they can make up their own minds as to whether this makes them feel they ought to revise their theories in case they keep an eye out for such things.


 * Nerushi, I do not feel I ever "stated a theory as fact", I stated two quotes and stated the seeming contradiction between them, never once suggesting that they constituted official confirmation, you made that up in your own mind I'm afraid. I have seen nobody outside of GD11 support your proposed theory here, and he also continued to try to evade the point I am trying to make as you seem to have been doing, so I wouldn't rush to try to act as though judgment's already passed on the point, that is very presumptuous and foolhardy. I removed your material before b/c it had nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. That is why I tried to explain it to you so you could understand why I was removing it. And when someone asks you to negotiate, it's not wise to knock their extended hand away, b/c it can damage future attempts to work with them. And I see that you added a statement about Gustaf possibly having a short reign and I'll go along with it, but here's once again the point you need to understand: this is not about Gustaf's reign, this is about TMC occurring "countless ages" after Gustaf's reign. So even if Gustaf did have a very short reign, there is not enough time between the unification of Hyrule into one nation and the events of OoT for all those long lines of kings that succeeded Gustaf to have been able to fill. I never once suggest this constitutes official confirmation, I simply point out that there is not enough time between Hyrule's unification and OoT to have had that many kings all the way from Gustaf to Daltus. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? This has never once been about me supporting any theory, this has been about me bringing two quotes to the forefront and letting others decide for themselves whether this should cause them to revise their theories. No force involved at all. Are we good? Link87 14:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You interpretated the quote which stated unified very explicitly as meaning the first establishment of Hyrule as Nation/Kingdom and the first establishment of a goverment under the Royal Family. These were the condition you were seeking as it would effectively render any game that involves Hyrule as a Kingdom/ or ruled by the Royal Family illegitimate, such as The Minish Cap. Let's take a look at the quote. "Some time ago, before the King of Hyrule unified this country, there was a fierce war in our world."

- Deku Tree Sprout

Okay. The King of Hyrule unified Hyrule thus ending a fierce war. What does this quote tell us? It tells us the King of Hyrule, unified Hyrule. The quote doesn't tell us he became King only afterwards so we are to understand that he already was king before he unified Hyrule. Being King means you are a head of state. This mean there must have been some sort of Government and a nation which he ruled over. We know this nation is Hyrule, as it has been implied to have existed even before wars struck it. "For ages, the people lived at ease, content in mind and body… But at length, a rivalry ensued over Hyrule, the holy land."

- Lanaryu And since he is a King, there is probably a Royal Family, which we know have existed for generations thanks to Impa. "We Sheikah have served the royalty of Hyrule from generation to generation as attendants."

- Impa

These things MUST precede Ocarina of Time What do we have in The Minish Cap? The conditions are all there. There are no far-fetched contradictions as you seem to think. The context which you are advocating simply doesn't exist. That is the first time ever establishment of Hyrule as a nation/kingdom ruled over the Royal Family. In fact, for this to be true there need to be a miryads of contradictions seeing how being a king ( which we know exist prior to OoT ) and a Royal Family ( The extended family of the king ) which we know have existed for generation, requires a country/nation and a government, and we know it was Hyrule because thats what Impa said! Now lets use occams razor. The King of Hyrule who unified Hyrule ( as it clearly says, nothing else ) most likely unified Hyrule from a state of war into peace. The quote seem to agree with this perspective seeing how the war only existed until he unified Hyrule. It is possible a new government was established of king to include those who were unified. However, it is impossible for it to be the first time a government existed. It contradict the elements which existed way before Ocarina of Time and the unification. As such, your interpretation has a very slime plausibillity of being true, seeing how it contradicts other existing evidence and since some factors, such as it being the first a nation/government under the royal family, were simply taken out of thin air, as such a context does not exist in Ocarina of Time. So, I am perfectly alright with you further advocating your very unlikely theory. Just be aware that its a theory, and the shade it cast over the possibility of games occuring before Ocarina of Time, is just as slim as the theory itself. A theory depending on another theory to be true always it. Are we good?Nerushi 15:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A country named Hyrule.
 * A King who unified Hyrule in state of war.
 * The royalty of Hyrule which has existed for generation.
 * A country named Hyrule
 * A King and A Long dead king
 * A Royal Family.


 * Lol, Nerushi here once again you show that you are trying to interpret the quotes your way as well. To the common person, "unify" or "unite" means to form a functioning coalition. When the Sprout says that the King of Hyrule "unified this country", most with an open mind take that to mean that he forged Hyrule into one nation with his tribe being the governing tribe apparently by the time of OoT. You're not going to change views on that by trying to misconstrue or to ignore it. Granted it does not elaborate, but for most that keep an open mind and looking for the most likely scenario, this is indeed what it means.


 * My "theory" is no theory, it's merely pointing out a possible glaring fallacy in the one you support. I keep an open mind as to what the timeline is, but I do not go by Aenouma's quotes as some do b/c they have been so far-fetched and scatter-brained, at times contradicting the very games he himself directed. I go by the games, and what I myself see here is a glaring contradiction that makes the theory supported by yourself highly unlikely. And why is this? Because I do not see Gustaf and all those kings down to Daltus being able to rule Hyrule in the short amount of time that it was unified into one country and the events of OoT. Sorry but I just don't see it, and most open-minded, rational people probably will not either. It's not an official certainty, but it definitely casts a lot of doubt on the theory you support. Sorry but you will not gain much credibility with me trying to insult me or lying about my intentions. Now if you would present yourself in a civilized tone, as Cip and Justin have said, and refrain from doing things that only further inflame the matter, we could perhaps discuss this like adults and perhaps you would be able to understand what I'm trying to say. I have tried to remain civil with you, but if that is not returned, then don't expect me to give you much time of day. If however you choose to cut out your attitude and have a civil, open discussion with me, I will gladly hear what you have to say and reason it out with you in a non-hostile way. That choice is yours.


 * I understand it is hard to accept things that could possibly void part of one's timeline, I myself would be a bit hesitant to accept it myself. However, when you have such quotes as these (even giving general time periods as well) it's hard to ignore what appears to be most likely. For my part, I don't display what I feel the timeline to be yet b/c I still don't feel I know enough about certain games to pass good judgment on where they belong. However, I have played both of these games enough to have run across this situation, and I feel I have a good enough grasp of both of them to state this discovery and let others choose for themselves whether they feel this creates a problem for such a theory as yours as I do. I too once felt that TMC could possibly have preceded OoT for the same reasons you do, but this is what changed all of that for me. Unlike myself however, not all are going to obviously be so willing to accept new information and adjust their theories accordingly. That decision is up to them. However this, to me, creates a big problem with TMC preceding OoT, one that I cannot see being able to be reconciled, at least not enough to make it the most likely case scenario to me. That's just for my part though. You're entitled to your opinion, but mine is unchanged b/c I've already been over all these things you keep trying to bring up, and none of them changes the situation enough to make it the most likely scenario that TMC precedes OoT unfortunately. I am convinced that OoT is indeed the first game and that TMC comes some time after that in one of the two branches, though just where I do not know yet. And you seem to skip over Gustaf's involvement like it's a minor thing but you still do not seem to want to acknowledge the problem he creates: his very inclusion, and his statements that he ruled Hyrule "countless ages" before the events of TMC, create a very big problem for the theory of TMC preceding OoT, that problem being there is not enough time between the unification of Hyrule into one country and the events of OoT for all those ages of kings to have succeeded Gustaf. Roughly ten years give or take a few does not equal "countless ages". That's the whole point here. Take it for what you will, but this has created an irreconcilable problem for that theory to me, and I go by what I feel is the most likely scenario, and when needs be, I change it when I feel I have made a discovery that changes the most likely case scenario. Link87 16:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Great job ignoring the evidence presented that completely contradicts your theory. Just awesome. The fact that you avoided my post altogether while trying to shift the conversaion makes me happy, because it simply means you have no answer for it. kthnxbai
 * Oh, and his name is Aonuma, not aenou-whatever. I don't want to hear someone who can't even spell the developers name correctly discussing their quote as if they had a understanding of it. Also, you have failed to point out these glaring contradictions, as proved by my post above yours, so yeah. Nice job there. Nerushi 16:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Lol, nice job ignoring the point I make and trying to beat around the bush with a bunch of questionable interpretations that conveniently ignore what I'm telling you. You don't want to accept that a decade does not equal "countless ages". I've even shown that I'm willing to accept what you even proposed, that Gustaf may perhaps have been the king at Hyrule's unification or had a short rule, that still does not change the fact that TMC takes place "countless ages" after his reign. You continue to fail to realize this, and it's not that difficult to understand. You simply refuse to acknowledge this problem. If you want to do that, fine, be my guest. I'm done trying to be civil with you, I've tried to be and you are the one now with all blame for this situation. I wash my hands of any responsibility for any feud between us b/c I am the one that has tried to be civil and negotiable. You on the other hand remain hostile and unwilling to accept the fallacy in your theory that I am trying to help you understand so you don't misconstrue my intentions. And for the record, a typo does not indicate I know nothing about Aonuma or whatever his last name is spelled, I could care less. Obviously, you have nothing genuine to bolster your opinion, so you resort to name-calling and attacks b/c you know that I speak the truth, and sometimes the truth hurts. I'm the one that's just proved a major contradiction with your theory, and nothing of what you've said or presented has changed that. So as I said, due to your poor ability to reason or accept the truth, I will not be giving you much time of day b/c you have not returned my overtures. And the blame for all of that now rests squarely on your shoulders, not mine. Good day. Link87 16:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you had read my post, then you would know that Hyrule, including its Royal Family existed before a decade ago. Also, I never proposed that Gustaf was king just shortly before OoT. As far as I am concerned, The Minish Cap could happend 1000 years before OoT, and it wouldn't contradict anything, because
 * 1. Hyrule exist long long looong before OoT and its war. ( Fact as said by Lanaryu )
 * 2. The Royalty of Hyrule existed long long looong before OoT and looong before a 'decade'. ( Fact as stated by Impa. )
 * Hyrule, and the royalty of Hyrule is present in The Minish Cap and is said in Ocarina of Time to have existed way before the unification. So... where is the glaring contradiction? You've been spouting nonsense since the beginning, and now I demand an answer. Nerushi 16:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This argument is going nowhere, as I and anyone who reads this thus far will clearly see. I think you guys will have to agree to disagree, as many of the same points keep popping up, as it seems. And that is ok - you both have valid points and clearly love the Zelda series and this wiki enough to go to great lengths to ensure its credibility! In conclusion, lets just keep these theories as neutral as possible, and especially removed from the Ocarina of Time page - this page, while this one in specific has a Timeline Placement section, it specializes in the impact of the split timeline and nothing more, meaning no specific theories. Those pages are, for the most part, the face of the wiki, so theories and the like should remain off of those pages as much as possible. Thanks guys! 18:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I will no longer be acknowledging the incompetence of this Nerushi, nor will I be addressing him anymore b/c he refuses to remain civil and spout his own brand of nonsense. I am cutting communication with him and will not be responding to anything he says from now on.


 * Now, as for the Ocarina of Time page, if we are going to remove all theories, then by the same token Nerushi's preferred theory should not be mentioned at all either. I will gladly remove the facts I have discovered from the game page, but Nerushi's are going too if it is to be made fair and remain unbiased. He has zero credibility in my book. Link87 18:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not? I'm not obessed with enforcing my views on other people. As long as it keeps false assumption away, then it is all good.Nerushi 18:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha, what a laugh. Such incompetence, and not worthy of further notice due to its stupidity. Good day sir. Link87 18:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Just chill for a bit
I was telling Chris in Skype to stop reverting, I'm catching up, reviewing the links, etc to see what I want to stay and nix. We can see the histories, so there's no need to get engaged in a reverting war, ever really. 09:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry about that.Nerushi 10:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)