User talk:Agiletek

From 1d4chan

That's fair, I regretted the sassy part soon after writing it. Thank you for merging the two.

Star Trek Continues[edit]

I think you need to look at the edit you made on the Star Trek Continues blurb, because you make the same statement twice. Also, from where are you referencing the assertion that the lead's own friends were the ones that made the allegations? --Cavgunner (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

They waited 8 years before making accusations and remained (as far as he and any outsider observer could tell) friends for those 8 years before they made the accusations. That's not a redundant statement. --Agiletek (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
They who? How do we know they were friends? Where is this stated? --Cavgunner (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
The ones he's sueing. How much detail do we need for this? I doubt we need to cover every detail of an ongoing legal cases of a subject that has a secondary importance to a subject itself already of secondary importance to /tg/? --Agiletek (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
To be honest I'm not sure that that 8-year thing should be mentioned at all, in my personal opinion it's going deeper into the weeds than is really necessary for a small blurb.--Cavgunner (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
It's a pretty simple part that deeply characterizes it. --Agiletek (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I understand that you think so, but what I'm trying to convey to you is that it's not written in a clear and concise manner, even after your last edit.--Cavgunner (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
If you're worried about the page itself, the talk page for that article would be a better place to put this given I'm the only person going to check this talk page. --Agiletek (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

im starting a new project does anyone seem interested in getting shit done?[edit]

hey, savagereaper here. do you want to help me with my new rpg setting hr giger's dark world its based on a /v/ called dark seed if you are interested in GETTING SHIT DONE talk to me on my user talk page Savagereaper (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

new homebrew, same guy[edit]

im looking for people to help me on a new homebrew called warhammer 40,000 for pokemon tabletop united, basically i had a thought about pokemon in the universe of warhammer 40k and wanted to make it a thing for pokemon tabletop united. i need people who couid do the game design, fluff writing, or editing if you are interested inquire on my user talk page. Savagereaper (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

SpectralTime and Fire Emblem Trading Card game[edit]

SpectralTime keeps removing info on the original Fire Emblem Trading Card game and instead replacing it with an out of place rant saying the original card game sucks and shouldn't be played. Could you make sure he stops doing that? Admiral Apathy (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Why the fuck am I being made arbiter of your fight? --Agiletek (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

you[edit]

hey mate I'm interested in collab on the "you" page I think your right about it could be made not shit The kreigerstine (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

About COVID-19[edit]

There is an official name for it, and there's an official name for every disease nowadays, it has nothing to do with "forced rebranding". This is why AIDS is no longer called the "gay plague", it's why BSE or Mad Cow was not "British Cow Syndrome", and they have this system because if they didn't there'd be confusion when similar diseases appear, for example this is technically SARS 2.

In short, unless you wish to change every mention of "AIDS" to the "Gay Plague" then you are not using the popular name of the disease. I should also point out that in both cases that's only the "popular name" in the US, and other countries have no issue in calling it by its official name. -- Triacom (talk) 04:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

That you use that argument shows you know exceptionally little of history. In-fact, your own example disproves your argument: GRIDS was only renamed after long efforts to make AIDS the common accepted name. --Agiletek (talk) 04:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't planning on going into a history lesson because it's ultimately irrelevant, so I kept it short and simple, and the point remains. You're accepting the name AIDS, yet you've decided not to accept COVID-19, and your justification, that you're using the popular version (even though it's specific to a single country) is false because you're not using that logic for a disease mentioned way more often on the site. -- Triacom (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
By the way, if you want to argue GRID vs AIDS further, both names came about at the same time in the same article, and "gay plague" arguably predates them both. GRID was also never used in the scientific community (at the time at least). -- Triacom (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Your argument that common name of something else differed in the past so the common name of another thing can't be used is quite simply insane. I'd also love to know where you get the idea that "Wuhan Flu" is only used in a single country. --Agiletek (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
My argument is that if you're using "popular names" then you need to be consistent, otherwise you're just making up an excuse to call it what you want, rather than what it's actually called. I'm also not saying it's only called that in one country, I'm saying that name is only popular in one country, and even then saying it's popular there is a big stretch. -- Triacom (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Then your argument is shit. "Gay Plague" is no longer the popular name. The name appears in common usage in Britain's Telegraph, the phrase "武漢肺炎" (Wuhan pneumonia) appears over 40,400,000 times on Japanese google, with the variant "武漢風邪" (Wuhan Illness) making up an additional 119,000 times. To claim its exclusive to a single country is a complete and total fabrication. --Agiletek (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
And the phrase "Wuhan Flu" is not the popular one now. "Wuhan Pnuemonia" and "Wuhan Illness" are also not the same name as "Wuhan Flu" and I can find more results for COVID-19. That you didn't post the results for "Wuhan Flu" in Japanese Google says more about it's popularity than anything else, and no, we're not talking about alternate names here, we're talking about the one you said was the popular name. I couldn't care less about the results for "Wuhan Pnuemonia" or "Wuhan Illness" right now because it's not what you were putting on the page. -- Triacom (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
That's because using English language in Japanese google will return English results. Don't you know how search engines work? "Wuhan Pnuemonia" and "Wuhan Illness" are both translations of the English phrase "Wuhan Flu", they just differ slightly due to the nature of translation. The vast majority of "COVID-19" uses are on government and corporate websites, no popular usage (and Bing's significantly higher numbers returned suggests Google is actively suppressing usage). Further, the tone of the paragraph you're edit warring to change a word in is completely unsuited to using the official name. Going from ultra-corporate "COVID-19" to calling it "Nurgle's latest blessing" is complete whiplash of tone and looks retarded. --Agiletek (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad you said this because it was exactly what I was expecting. If the name is different in another language, then it is false to attribute their results to your term, since anyone can easily attribute your term as a translation of theirs (and therefore claim their term is the more popular one). The only way you can claim that "Wuhan Pnuemonia" and "Wuhan Illness" are translations of "Wuhan Flu" is if you can prove they did not originate on their own, and you cannot prove that, although I'd welcome your attempt to try. Next, if you don't want to use the term "Gay Plague" because it's no longer popular, then tell me, do you really believe that popularity for "Wuhan Flu" (however small) won't dwindle? Going from ultra-corporate "COVID-19" to calling it "Nurgle's latest blessing" is complete whiplash of tone and looks retarded.
Now this I do agree with, that being said the old version was dumber. If you'd like to rewrite it without the "popular" name go ahead, or let me know if you'd be fine with my attempt at fixing it. I'm not interested in an editwar so this time I'm asking first. -- Triacom (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Your entire time here has been moving the goalposts. First you argued that another disease should be changed to an archaic name if a current name for one disease was to be used (???). Then you argued it was exclusive to a single country. Then you argued it wasn't the most common term. Then you argued any slight drift when a word is translated means it's a different word. Now you argue the page as it was was dumb and are telling me to rewrite the page or accept your "fixing" it. That's not how this kinda thing works. --Agiletek (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Your entire time here has been moving the goalposts. If you think this then you don't understand my points, so I'll assume I didn't explain them properly and go over what I thought while writing it and why I wrote what I did:

  • When you changed the name back to "Wuhan Flu" the first time I thought you were doing that based on the location it was discovered, and since I get annoyed when people use that as an excuse to refer to this disease, and only this disease, like that (they'll just conveniently drop the act of naming diseases based on location when talking about any other illness) I changed it back. This is why I started off by saying you should be renaming all the mentions of AIDS to "American Disease", however this assumption about you was wrong.
  • When you said you were doing it because that's the popular name, I said that you should then rename AIDS mentions on this wiki to the "Gay Plague" for the same reason as above. I've stuck with this throughout this discussion, and I haven't changed my stance on it.

Now two other points:

  • I did not argue a name was exclusive to a country, I argued your perceived popularity for it was exclusive to a country.
  • Not accepting alternate names for "Wuhan Flu" should be fine, since it's exactly what you are doing. You aren't accepting an alternate/the official name, while deciding you will accept to other alternative/non-official names. You act as if they're literally the same name when we can both see they are not, even though they refer to the same illness. Then you argued any slight drift when a word is translated means it's a different word. You're correct, because if they use different words... then that means they're using different words.

Now that we're caught up, let's look at this: Now you argue the page as it was was dumb and are telling me to rewrite the page or accept your "fixing" it. That's not how this kinda thing works. Sure it is, you seem to think the current version's worse, I think the past version's worse, and if we both think a page is dumb (especially if we think it's dumb in different ways) should we not talk about how to fix it? That's what I'm asking for. -- 06:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

"since I get annoyed when people use that as an excuse to refer to this disease, and only this disease, like that" So now you admit your posistion is ultimately just based on that you, personally, dislike a phrase? It's completely false anyways: Spanish Flu, Lyme Disease, Marburg Virus, Norovirus, Legionnaire's Disease, Lassa fever, West Nile virus, oh and EBOLA. Even CNN is willing to admits this and that attempts to the contrary are against common uses, and forced onto people Newspeak style. I've already said there's a reason to use one term over the other here: The rest of the paragraph is informal, and a formal term is a poor fit. Arguing if a noun is the same word or not when the language barrier gives a minor change is incredibly pedantic, petty and irrelevent. --Agiletek (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
So now you admit your posistion is ultimately just based on that you, personally, dislike a phrase? Have you gotten the impression that wasn't the case? This started because you personally disliked a phrase, and I personally disliked what you changed it to (and also your reasons for changing it). It's completely false anyways: Spanish Flu- First found in Kansas, oops. You shouldn't be chiding me for imagining I don't know my history when you're ignorant yourself. This is also ignoring the fact that the guidelines for naming diseases have since changed and have been different for years, but I'll assume you were unaware, despite the fact that I referenced this earlier. I've already said there's a reason to use one term over the other here: The rest of the paragraph is informal, and a formal term is a poor fit. Except the fake name for it is used in a formal manner, to directly address the disease. The fake name is not an informal term for it, especially not in the case it was used on the page and that's why I believe that while both versions are bad, the old one was worse. By the way, if we really did still name diseases based on location then that would be the formal name for it, so if you want an informal term you should pick another. Arguing if a noun is the same word or not when the language barrier gives a minor change is incredibly pedantic, petty and irrelevent. I hope we can agree that "Flu", "Pnuemonia" and "Illness" are not items that can all be used interchangeably, it's not pedantic to want to separate them when they each carry very different connotations. -- Triacom (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Moving the goalposts again I see: You've changed from arguing the name is unpopular to arguing the name is "fake". That's a massive shift. Your claim "the guidelines for naming diseases have since changed and have been different for years" (I'm going to guess you're not an epidemiologist, and that you're not in medicine at all) ignores the example of Ebola, which was bolded for a reason. The actual origin of the Spainish Flu is 100% irrelevent (not to mention the Kansas origin is actually one of multiple theories about its true origin), as it's still the "Spainish flu". Further both "肺炎", and (especially) "風邪" can be translated as 'flu", the translations given was purely to seperate the two from eachother. --Agiletek (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not shifting the goalposts, I'm still arguing that the name isn't the popular one for it, and I'm also arguing that it's a fake name since it's not the official one (quite literally it's the definition of a fake name). It can be both at the same time. Your claim the guidelines for naming diseases have since changed and have been different for years (I'm going to guess you're not an epidemiologist, and that you're not in medicine at all) ignores the example of Ebola, which was bolded for a reason. Again, you're demonstrating your ignorance, even though I just told you the guidelines were changed recently you haven't looked it up, so I'll tell you flat out: the guidelines were changed in 2015, and Ebola was discovered in 1976. I'm not sure why you're acting as if Ebola is that recent, or more recent than the changed guidelines seeing as how they've been around for five years and Ebola predates them by 39 years. The actual origin of the Spainish Flu is 100% irrelevent (not to mention the Kansas origin is actually one of multiple theories about its true origin), as it's still the "Spainish flu". You accuse me of shifting the goalposts yet look what you're doing now. You used it as an example of a disease named for where it was discovered (before you falsely accuse me of shifting the goalposts again, scroll up, I've always been talking about where diseases were discovered, not their actual origin because that's how they used to be named), even though it was undeniably first discovered in Kansas, and once proven wrong you act like its location doesn't matter. Alright then, I'll play that game: it doesn't matter where COVID-19 was discovered, because it's still "COVID-19" officially. Further both "肺炎", and (especially) "風邪" can be translated as 'flu", the translations given was purely to seperate the two from eachother. Can you prove that it only translates as "Flu"? If not, it's a moot point. -- Triacom (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The WHO is not the arbiter of medical terminology. Those guidelines are purely a recomendation, like most things dreamed up by powerless UN agencies, which you'd know if actually read the article you linked. It's literally in the opening paragraph. If the WHO did have actual medical authority, that would be horrifying since the agency admitted it made up a non-existant medical condition of "Video Game Addiction" out of whole cloth at the request of "certain Asian countries". Spanish Flu was given as an example of a disease named for a location. You are the only one who has said the part on the location discovered instead of merely for locations. "Can you prove that it only translates as "Flu"" is again you attributing things to me I never said only. Either your reading comprehension is seriously lacking, or you're doing this out of malice. Claiming a word is "fake" (What the fuck even is a "fake" word short of one made up on the spot like "smeckledorfed"?) because its less popular is completely anathema to how a real (as opposed to a constructed language like Elvish or Klingon, because at this point it's clear I need to clarify such things to you) language works. Ultimately your admission your insistence on a particular version was purely your own personal preference even though you agree it's to the detriment of the article is all that was needed for me to return the page back. --Agiletek (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The WHO is not the arbiter of medical terminology. Those guidelines are purely a recomendation, like most things dreamed up by powerless UN agencies, which you'd know if actually read the article you linked. Two problems here, first the WHO is still the one that named it officially, and secondly all naming conventions are guidelines, there's no rules behind any of them. There are however official names and unofficial (fake) names, take GRID and AIDS as an example of a fake vs an official name. Spanish Flu was given as an example of a disease named for a location. You are the only one who has said the part on the location discovered instead of merely for locations. Then why did you try to use it as a counterpoint example of diseases named after where they were discovered? If that's not what you were trying to do then you wouldn't have included it alongside Lyme Disease and Ebola. "Can you prove that it only translates as "Flu"" is again you attributing things to me I never said only. I didn't say you said only, I'm asking a question, I wasn't quoting you. Claiming a word is "fake" (What the fuck even is a "fake" word short of one made up on the spot like "smeckledorfed"?) because its less popular is completely anathema to how a real (as opposed to a constructed language like Elvish or Klingon, because at this point it's clear I need to clarify such things to you) language works. A name is a fake name if it isn't the real name, that shouldn't be a surprise. Claiming that the name is fake is a different argument to whether or not the fake name is popular, and I never claimed it was fake because it was less popular. For somebody who assumes I'm misquoting them, you sure do love putting words in my mouth. Ultimately your admission your insistence on a particular version was purely your own personal preference even though you agree it's to the detriment of the article is all that was needed for me to return the page back. You're doing the exact same thing, you're changing the page back to what you thought the formal term was even though you said it's detrimental to use a formal term there. -- Triacom (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
By the way, it speaks volumes of the popularity for "Wuhan Flu" that three separate users have removed it and you're the only one trying to add it back in. -- Triacom (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
One of which is an unregistered user that has only made political edits. --Agiletek (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
And? They're still a user, that still puts you and your opinion in the minority. -- Triacom (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
By your logic, spam should be left up because the majority of users have been spammers. --Agiletek (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Not every spammer spams the same thing, and that's also an example of how popularity means squat when it comes to officially naming/making something. Also there are still basic rules, one of which is no spam. -- Triacom (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The code of conduct also says to take dicussions to the article's talk page. I guess your opinion is invalid since you took this dicussion to the wrong place (a user's talk page). --Agiletek (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I went here first because the system sends a message to the user if somebody puts something on their talk page, if you want me to move all of this the Yugioh talk page then I'd be happy to. -- Triacom (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)