User talk:64.222.97.201

Hi, welcome to Mass Effect Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Raloi page.

Please sign in and create a user name. It's an easy way to keep track of your contributions and helps you communicate with the rest of the community.

Be sure to check out our Style Guide and Community Guidelines to help you get started, and please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- DRY (Talk) 03:37, 31 May 2010

Raloi info
Please note that the use of intergalactic in the raloi article comes straight from a canon source. It is not for any of us to decide what is and is not a mistake in a canon source. If BioWare says they learned 'intergalactic law', that's what they learned. For all we know, the definition of intergalactic has changed somewhat in the intervening centuries. With that said, please stop inserting [sic] into the raloi article. Thanks, SpartHawg948 03:47, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

jonny on the spot, eh? The definition of "intergalactic" is spaning more than one galaxy. given that there is only one known settled galaxy in this game, it is not intergalactic. it is galactic. By inserting [sic], we recognize for this to be so. sources considered canon make mistakes all the time, and it is up to us to recognize this. No harm done in having the tag there, huh? 64.222.97.201 03:50, May 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what was being referred to with 'jonny[sic] on the spot'. I'm an admin doing admin duties. Again, we don't know that the generally accepted definition of intergalactic hasn't changed by 2183/5. BioWare says it's intergalactic. It's BioWare's universe, so it's 'intergalactic'. End of story. BioWare is very good about correcting mistakes made by canon sources. They haven't said anything about this one, so there is no reason to assume it's a mistake. We are now in edit war territory, and edit warring can result in a ban, Again, please refrain from adding [sic] to the article. Thanks, SpartHawg948 03:53, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant that you and the other one responded pretty damn quick. Not that that is a bad thing. On the contrary, rather. And I would have to disagree with you. There is reason to assume that this is a mistake, there is plenty of reason. The statement about intergalactic law contradicts all other canon established by the franchise, so therefore it is quite safe to assume that that is in error. Much safer than assuming that it isn't. The chances that Bioware made an error are much greater than them deciding to change a space term in a space opera franchise. 64.222.97.201 03:57, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Again though, we've seen several times here that BioWare is very good about coming on to the wiki and owning up to mistakes and providing the correct info, for issues much smaller than this one. Disagree all you want, but the canon source says intergalactic, and nothing has come forward to contradict this. Terminology is misused in similar circumstances all the time today. Take 'genocide', for example. No one group of people has ever been entirely eradicated by another, but international law recognizes several instances of genocide throughout history. Not 'attempted genocide', just plain genocide. And as I've said all too many times here, there is no safe assumption, because assumptions are speculation. SpartHawg948 04:01, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

You yourself assume that the usage of intergalactic was altered, or misused intentionally. What makes that assumption any safer than my own? Just because the canon source says something doesn't make itself true. Plenty of people involved in murders and other crimes say that it didn't happen, but does that make them true? They are canon, and they were likely there. Bioware isn't beyond making error, and they aren't beyond being able to own up for every mistake. They probably have their hands full with the third game, the movie, and god knows what else they are doing with this franchise. 64.222.97.201 04:05, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * I make no such assumption. If I assume anything, it's that if BioWare said 'intergalactic', it's because they meant 'intergalactic'. As for your hypothesis about BioWare being too busy, I suppose that's why we've seen most of their mea culpas recently, eh? I know they aren't beyond making errors, but your saying this was an error doesn't make it so. SpartHawg948 04:08, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * whatever. seriously, if it takes this much work to make an article better, what's the point. Oh, and look at the Mass Effect page, and tell me that my edit shouldn't be done. 64.222.97.201 04:10, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it should have been done. It's a valid trivia item about a reference to a specific game (Mass Effect). As such, I see no reason it shouldn't be listed in the article for the game being referenced. SpartHawg948 04:13, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

You've gotta be kidding me. ONE small piece of insignificant trivia on a page that has like, 5 sections, and it should still be there? There is only one piece of trivia there, when there are countless bits of trivia in the game. Either more should be there, or none. And don't wikis have policies against trivia? 64.222.97.201 04:18, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Some, I suppose, but not this one, as a perusal of our articles will demonstrate (remember that individual wikis set their own policies on this sort of stuff). After all, most of our articles feature trivia, with a fair bit of it coming from BioWare sources. You could also refer to our Manual of Style, which has guidelines on trivia for articles. If you think more info could be added to the Mass Effect trivia section, then feel free to add it. I'm all for the addition of valid content, but not for its removal. SpartHawg948 04:22, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * You cannot be serious. This is ridiculous. You know what other content would be valid? Adding a section that says "Fun Facts!" and saying stuff about Shepherd "romancing" squadmates and Saren being a baddy. 64.222.97.201 04:28, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

I hope that it is you who was not being serious there. The reason a 'Fun Facts' section would not work is because 'Fun Facts' are subjective in nature. What is true (or fun and factual) to one person isn't to another. On the other hand, confirmed bits of trivia like the one on the Mass Effect page are objective. They are true no matter who reads it. Objective vs Subjective is a pretty big distinction. Again, feel free to add other bits of (objective) trivia. However, if you disagree with the policy of this wiki to allow trivia sections, you are more than welcome to propose eliminating that policy on the Manual of Style talk page. I don't see that proposal going too far, but you are more than welcome to. SpartHawg948 04:31, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Alright, change the name of the section to "Facts about the Game". What is wrong with that?

Edit Warring
Please note that edit warring, which is exactly what you are doing on the Raloi page, is a bannable offence. I am aking you to please stop becuase the source is directly from BioWare, and therefore canon. If they had wanted that in, they would have put it in. Please stop before you are banned. Lancer1289 03:51, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why is what I was doing edit warring, and what you were doing wasn't? And I explained above why [sic] needs to be in there. 64.222.97.201 03:52, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

You violated the wiki-standard 'Three revert rule', adding material that is not needed. And [sic] isn't needed. Lancer was removing material that is unneeded. This is the difference, and why one is edit warring and the other isn't. SpartHawg948 03:55, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) It is edit warring becuase you add something that is not applicable in the article, and I keep removing it. Becuase you keep adding it, it is edit warring on your part. It is BioWare's universe in Mass Effect, so they can do what they will with it. If they call it intergalactic then it's intergalactic. A sig tag isn't necessary for that reason. Lancer1289 03:56, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

bro
is this really something worth getting banned over, the only known fact is that the cerberus new network (likely cerberus funneling news to its people through other sources) used the word intergalactic, so within the universe this error exsists. Either that or council space uses the term because they figure that eventually. . . they will figure out intergalactic travel, y'know get a head start on things. Or perhaps the asari word for intergalatci and interstellar is the same so there are translation errors with human softwar, the amount of solutions is mind boggling. So until it is confirmed that it is a mistake then it is not a mistake. ralok 04:21, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

I don't care if I get banned. Also, what is your interest in this? 64.222.97.201 04:23, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. I think his 'interest in this'... is that he is interested. Interested in that it interests him, not that he has a vested interest. You don't need an invitation to try and offer a friendly word of advice. SpartHawg948 04:25, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * This is my talk page, is it not? Gotchu there don't I. HaHA!
 * No. You don't. Anyone is free to add comments to any other users talk page. The only thing this being 'your' talk page means is that only you can remove comments from it (with a very few exceptions, i.e. blatantly offensive remarks such as racist comments, or editing comments left by other users by removing content, etc.) So no, you don't really have me there. I suppose to follow your format I should now say HaHa! SpartHawg948

Look the plain and simple fact is someone in the mass effect universe said "intergalactic" and thus that is what the article says, we have to go on second hand information, we dont have the source in our hands we cannot make judgements about this stuff. We are scribes, not builders of roads. WE may think about the materials being used to build but we have no say in how it is built, we can offer advice to the builders but we cannot garuntee they will listen, and there are things the builders are doing that we just cannot understand because its part of some greater plan. And we dont know what exactly is going on, the only thing we can do i9s just let it be. ralok 04:33, May 31, 2010 (UTC)