User talk:SpartHawg948

User talk:SpartHawg948 Archive 1

ME 2 Talk Page clean up
Would it be pertinent at this time to get rid of a good chunk of the topics on the talk page? It's beginning to get rather long, cluttered and seems to repeat itself quite often, there's a talk for Tali and one for a quarian squad member, two concerning the Normandy and its fate, and overall a lot of topics that have direct sources in the article and are redundant such as ones concerning importing Shepards and romances from the first game there's also ones about box art and release dates which are moot. So is a clean up necessary or a good idea?--Xaero Dumort 03:00, October 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * At the moment, I would say no. Once it has released, we can take a look at it. For starters, issues like the box art, release date, import and romance stuff are believed to be moot or redundant. We won't know for sure though till it releases. Things can change quite drastically over the course of a few months. Same w/ the Tali and squad member stuff. It is unresolved, so at the moment I would not really feel comfortable going in and changing it. Also, when the time comes, I don't believe we should just "get rid" of the items on the talk page. It should be archived. SpartHawg948 10:16, October 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * Archived of course, I understand that. Alright, no problem then. I was just curious as it was feeling cluttered to me. Thanks for the response.--Xaero Dumort 17:53, October 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't want to start a new talk for this, just wanted to say thanks for wording that edit about husks and geth better and yeah I realize that it was one offensive in which they lost, but I wasn't sure how to state their return to the Perseus Veil after the battle without spoiling ME, as I know a lot of people haven't played the first who will be playing this, and as I type I realize it wouldn't really matter would it as they would learn the back story when they start ME2. Ha. Thanks again Spart.--Xaero Dumort 19:54, October 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem! After all, I am here to help! :) SpartHawg948 21:59, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Desicions
By desicions will be transferred will that mean like the assingments as well or just the more important stuff like Virmire and the romance subplot?--Matt xMan 21:52, October 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * Now, bear in mind that this is just an opinion, as I don't know for sure, but I believe that it mainly refers to the important choices (Virmire, the rachni, maybe the asari commando from Feros, romance, etc...), but there may also be some stuff from "less critical" assignments that carries over too. Maybe even stuff like the consort, Samesh Bhatia, stuff like that. We'll just have to wait and see to know for sure. SpartHawg948 22:02, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

ME2 Tali squad changes again
I saw that changes were made, and I looked at the direct source link provided, and while it seems as though they are stating Tali is part of the squad, the wording still isn't definitive, thought I would let you know if you hadn't seen so you could make a judgment call. Here is the "Source". I hadn't checked the links in previous alterations, but I'm sure this is the same one that keeps getting spammed.


 * Yup. This is the same one everyone else uses. It states Tali will return in the game. That's it. They don't say anything about Tali being a squad member. And as I have also pointed out, in the paragraph before the one where it is confirmed Tali will be in the game, Mr Lee says not to make assumptions based on the tiny amount of info that had been released. So no, they do not state at any time that Tali is part of the squad. SpartHawg948 11:51, October 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * Thought I signed the first post, whoops. Just got pointed to two more forum posts, one with a marketing manager saying Tali is a squad member scroll down a bit or Ctrl+F "E3 (demo)" and this one from Patrick Weekes, talking about writing for Tali and another unrevealed squad member Again scroll or Ctrl+F "murkiness". What do you think? Enough to put it as definite as it comes from two sources of the company? And I put the Ctrl+F parts cuz I couldn't figure out how to single out the post, and thought they would take you quickly to the point.--Xaero Dumort 19:31, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm seems Wilsonator went ahead and made the change, and he seems pretty on the ball so, I guess just take a look when you get a chance.--Xaero Dumort 20:16, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It's sourced, I'm happy. All I ever wanted was for a valid source to back up the claims, and we now seem to have it. SpartHawg948 21:52, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

RE:User Page Comments
I understand now that it was a poor attempt at humor, and will let it go. However, alleging that I had questioned whether you "REALLY LOVE Mass Effect" (which of course is what you entitled this thread" certianly is putting words in my mouth. So is alledging that I suggested your response was "violent and hostile" when I of course did nothing of the sort. I am sorry, but I do not take kindly at all to people putting words in my mouth. SpartHawg948 04:37, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok....I know this argument is pretty much over, but I just want to say something. To quote Liara..."You must think I am a complete and utter fool!"...I had no idea what I was talking about. I can see I had a typo in the "My Home Page" and I am a dumbass (sorry if swears aren't allowed). It is pretty funny!--Colinissile 22:34, October 27, 2009 (UTC)--Colinissile 22:34, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Hooray! That's all I was driving at, was that I found it funny that your user page stated you were a "huge Mass Effect". I was trying to point it out to be helpful, but to make it humorous instead of sounding rude or condescending. Well, it's all cleared up now, so again, Hooray! SpartHawg948 02:20, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Normandy SR-2
I can't seem to post it on the site and make it clear, but if you search through the screenshots that have been released, you'll come across one that has Than standing in front of the ship. It is sort of distorted, but you can clearly make out Normandy and SR2 on the hull. Thanks for the warning though. --Jdunn1 02:53, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * This one? The SR-2 is definitely clear, but I sure can't make out Normandy. I can make out an N, then after that everything is pretty indistinct. There are plenty of other battles that start w/ the letter N. So until something clearer is released, I'm gonna have to chalk this up as speculation. However, if you were referring to another image, please let me know. SpartHawg948 06:30, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Reaper Theory
I agree, it's nice to have an intelligent debate. As to the theory, my counter-points are as follows:


 * As per the analogy, you have to remember your transplanting your mind/soul/whatever into this baby. Your old body is dying, but your new one isn't.


 * There is no proof that it occurs every 50000 years, I know, I've checked.


 * The quantum mechanics is needed for less intelligent people who don't understand why energy beings can't exist today. To a smart and creative person, this is common sense.


 * Here's the thing: If you were a 5000 mile long, potentially 13 billion year old dreadnought, how long do you think it would take for you to tear apart things like the Citadel and the several hundered relays, and rebuild something to replace them, but fill the same highly generic role, while filling a different specific role? And how do we know that the Citadel and Relays the Protheans know to be the same? They were possibly similar to the Conduit, either small, planet bound, and vertical, or large, planet bound, and vertical? The Reapers would have likely torn these apart during thier last little visit, and built the relays we know before they left. As to the Citadel, why replace something that works perfectly? The Conduit was likely a Prothean pre-ME relay, and they went to Ilos with normal FTL. I know this is a lot of "likelies", but its a theory.


 * Addressing the EXTINCTION, they seek the EXTINCTION of sentient ORGANICS, while they CREATE sentient SYNTHEICS out of THEM. LOL.

I hope this proves my point. If not, please respond. I could go for some more debating.

--Nra &#39;Vadumee 21:15, November 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * I recently completed another ME playthrough, and with Sovereign's voice fresh in my head, I have to say that it disproved my theory to an extent. Also, your right, It is more like theoretical astrophysics (my prefered field), however, I'm used to less intelligent people in my conversations, so I tend to call my prefered fields something they're used to (i.e. "astrobiology" rather then the more appropriate xenobiology). However, the more theoretical portions still stand. My points:


 * While difficult, I can explain it. Realistically, after the Reapers created thier bodys, they would transfer thier energy into the ship's reactor, jumpsarting it with themselves, and downloading thier conscious into the ship's computer(s). Analogically, try to imagine draining your brain of energy, killing your body, while somehow (this is for physical beings; its easy for energy beings)) preserving your mind. Then, you jump start the clinically dead infant body with the brain power, and download your mind into the body. Bingo! You're free from a dying body.


 * Again, I recently finished ME again. I recall most of the scenes with Liara, and not once do I recall her saying it happened roughly every 50,000 years.

While I admit semi-defeat, half my theory is still neutral: It cannot be proven nor disproven. If I'm wrong, then prove it.

--Nra &#39;Vadumee 20:53, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

You didn't read the entire above entry, did you. Read it thoroughly. I admitted defeat, to an extent. I remember the conversation with Sovereign quite well, and it disproved much of my original theory (I hadn't played ME in a few months when I first posted). However, I did state that a few points were impossible to prove or disprove, you need to prove that it is not neutral. The points you mentioned I admitted that were false and disproven. I've rested my case.

--Nra &#39;Vadumee 23:26, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

No offense intended, but your intelligence seems to surpass your commen sense. I had assumed that since these points were not involved, you would add 2 and 2 together. The points you mentioned, relating to the knowledge that Soveriegn says but not explains, I said were false, and so they were ejected from my theory, making quite neutral. No one can prove nor disprove it (with the obvious exception of a BioWare employee) with current knowledge. We will likely have to wait until Mass Effect 2 comes out, and if Bioware tantalizes its players, we will have to wait for the legendary Mass Effect 3 (I like the sound of that...like Halo 3, it gives you a sense of absoluteness of completetion) to give us enough information to either foward or disprove this theory. Until then, I see no point in continuing this debate.

--Nra &#39;Vadumee 22:34, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't ment to insult you. I won't bring it up more, since my lack of contact with human culture may lead me to "insult" you furthur (I do get out often, but that doesn't mean I socially interact much.). As to my theory, I see no reason to modify what remains of it in any way. By discharging the points refering to "recent" events, i.e, those relating to the Prothean extinction, I do not need to alter the points referring to the young universe time. In other words, destroying the top of a building (the recent events) doesn't destroy the foundation (the ancient events). I wasn't "dodging", I was explaining in a way you may not have understood (thats not an insult, just a statement referring to the idea that I may have miscommunicated). Also, Tullis is right, if we continue this debate, we should move it to the forums. But, like I said, until we have more knowledge and better understanding of the Reapers, we cannot go any further with my theory. Anything else?

--Nra &#39;Vadumee 23:39, November 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * Sigh... the scientific method maintains that once evidence that disproves a theory is presented, the theory must by necessity be modified accordingly, else it will be know as disproved. But I suppose that doesn't really mean anything these days, does it? Any further attempts to attain a victory in the name of science, reason and rationalism will obviously be the equivalent of banging my head against a wall, as there is no way to prevail against someone who refuses to apply the scientific method to their theory.
 * And on a related note, does anyone else out there see a way in which "your intelligence seems to surpass your common sense" is not insulting? Maybe I'm just missing something? My superiors in the Air Force regularly commend my common sense, which is, in fact, not that common these days. Of course, I am also the one who realizes that the scientific method is not a sometimes thing, that it is necessary in the formulation of ANY theory, so maybe the lack of common sense is not on this end? SpartHawg948 02:09, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

User 92.10.200.91 and Legion
I somehow stumbled upon what you wrote on this guy's talk page. I'll start by saying 'what an a$$', and finish by thanking you for the response. Good to see there's smart, decent, and sensible people running the place. Phylarion 21:27, November 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, I do what I can! I don't take kindly to that crap around here, and appreciate being referred to as smart, decent and sensible. :) SpartHawg948 10:30, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Titles and formatting
Apologies if I trod on anyone's toes regarding the formatting - I was under the impression that it was best avoided in titles so I decided to "correct" it. Part of the reason I did so was that the titles were left-justified when I originally looked at the article, so I assumed the added HTML code was in error. In hindsight, I guess it was probably just one of those odd caching problems you see with Wikia now and then. --vom 08:16, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

RE: Legion Source
http://pc-mmo.nowgamer.com/previews/pc-mmo/644/mass-effect-2?o=0#listing There's the Legion source.

LordDeathRay (Briefing Room)  03:50, November 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * Ummm... thanks? I don't recall ever asking for it, as I have seen it several times already. However, as has been stated here and here, this source is considered unreliable. That's the crux of the issue right now. We need a reliable source stating whether or not Legion will be a squad member, which I stated in the edit comments. Legion's existence was never in doubt. So, thanks again for linking something I never asked for that ultimately advanced this issue not one iota! :P SpartHawg948 09:15, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Trivia adjustment
The monolith is a device which induces evolutionary jumps. The vision is of data off a data recorder. There's no reference going on. We've installed video recorders on turtles, so there's solid precedent. 24.62.83.8 19:57, November 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough! Now see, if that had been in the edit summary box in the first place, I would have had no problems with it. SpartHawg948 20:02, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually though, now that I think about it, in the film the monolith was all about evolution, but in the original novel, wasn't the monolith for observation and alteration? SpartHawg948 20:06, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

It's observational capability was for allowing remote operation rather than anthropological study. 24.62.83.8 09:06, November 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? Pretty sure the monoliths were intended to search for intelligent life and then, if possible, encourage development of said life. In which case there is definitely a similarity. SpartHawg948 09:25, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Spelling
Alright, thanks for the explanation, I'll keep that in mind. :)--Mytharox 23:19, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Not to mince words, but...
You're wrong. There are a number of times in the game you have the option to introduce yourself as an Alliance Marine, and at any rate, "soldier" is an improper arbitrary designation for a naval infantry officer or enlisted man; the correct term is "marine" or "sailor," depending on branch, or MOS as it appears to function in Mass Effect, with their Marines simply being a different occupational category. The game makes no mention at all of "soldiers."


 * If I'm wrong, then why was Shepard an XO on a warship, a warship that also has a Marine Detail commander, Kaidan Alenko? Speaking of arbitrary designations, how about marine? Soldier is a generalized term for someone serving in an armed service. Shepard would seem to qualify, wouldn't you agree? And how about the fact that the Spacer background mentions that your parents were both Alliance Navy (Navy, not marines) and at the age of eighteen you followed in their footsteps? Not to mince words, but you are wrong in stating it would be improper to refer to Shepard as a soldier, which again, is a more generalized term for a service-member than marine, as evidenced by it's definition "soldier- a person engaged in military service." Pretty straightforward, that. SpartHawg948 04:35, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

I quote from the "assignment complete" dialog given after completing the mission on Nodacrux: "Exogeni's second-rate mercs proved no match for a trained Alliance Marine. With the last of the science crew dead, there's no reason to linger here." You have to keep in mind that although customs and courtesies and some general terminology remain the same in the Mass Effect universe as compared to contempory military forces, it appears a great deal has changedwith regards to rank structure and command billets. And "Oops" for not signing my last post. Great wiki, by the way, a lot of good info on here. 65.188.211.244 22:32, December 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * Again though, as I point out... there is NOTHING wrong with calling him a soldier as opposed to small "m" marine (as the quote refers to Marine, as in the service). Again, "soldier- a person engaged in military service." Wait a second... doesn't that definition match Commander Shepard to a T? Pretty sure it does! :P SpartHawg948 23:07, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

You know, maybe, just maybe, the writers have made a mistake and been inconsistent with regards to what Shepard is? It wouldn't be the first time they made a mistake. Since that's possible and it's not 100% on what he is, the generic 'soldier' should suffice. JakePT 00:59, December 2, 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed! That's why I wanted to stick with soldier! It's a general, all-around, works no matter what term. SpartHawg948 05:08, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Capitalising "commander"
I know Commander is a military rank, but here it's being used as a substitute for a male-female pronoun. It's in lower case throughout the wiki when used as such, and frankly it looks really odd if it's capitalised. It draws attention to the fact we're keeping it gender-neutral. Don't we normally keep ranks lower-case when we're referring to, say, "the admiral's family"?

Also, I added it in the Style Guide as being lower-case, so shouldn't this have been addressed well before now? : ) --Tullis 13:48, November 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly, never really noticed it in the style guide. As for the admiral's family, that one is lowercase b/c it isn't a direct reference to the individual in question. Referring to the Commander is such a direct reference. And honestly, wouldn't it be a good thing to bring attention to the gender-neutral referencing (not that I really think it does, any more than when you see say, General Petraeus referred to by name in one part of an article and then as the General later on)? People seem to forget that around here. Anywho, at the end of the day, military ranks are earned honorifics, and as a service-member I would prefer to see said honorifics acknowledged properly by correct use of capitalization. I will, however, hold off on making any more edits for the moment till we reach some sort of consensus. SpartHawg948 20:22, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * Soooo... thoughts? SpartHawg948 01:37, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is, we're up against different military cultures here : ) . My brother's a captain whether he's the captain or the Captain (though to be honest, normally he's just known as "boss"). To me, giving someone their honorific is more important than whether it has a capital letter or not. If I was one of Shepard's marines, I'd likely speak (and write) the Commander out of respect, but I have to say it sounds much too formal for our purposes. However, I imagine one who's earned the rank has strong and differing views on the topic.
 * I checked elsewhere but the Elements of Style has nothing useful concerning this, unfortunately--unusual, it's normally my go-to book for grammar. Doh. Thoughts? --Tullis 01:58, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's my POV on this issue... it's something that is most definitely an earned honorific, and after all, military ranks are made to sound formal. That's why it's Commander Shepard, and Admiral Ahern, and Captain Anderson, as opposed to admiral Ahern or whatev. I mean, there's precedent. Why do we refer to the Council as the "Council" and not the "council"? It's to distinguish them. There's a difference between a commander (someone who comnmands something) and a Commander (someone who holds the rank of Commander or Lieutenant Commander). That's where I'm coming from here. SpartHawg948 02:18, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion continues here. --Tullis 15:56, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Mass Effect Fan Wiki...
Hey, I've been on the Mass Effect Fanon, I like to call it, and it's not very social like. I mean Halo Fanon has tons and tons of users. I've been on the ME Fanon a few times and it's not as, y'know, social as ME Wiki. Could'nt you guys, like, promote Fanon? I'm just asking, I'm not forcing. --Matt xMan 05:42, December 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a link to it so I can check it out before making a call on it? SpartHawg948 05:44, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Here ya go: http://masseffectfanfiction.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page. You could'v also found it on the Related Communities box. Should we put it on the news, talk page or what? --Matt xMan 05:52, December 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not news... so not there... and no offense, but based on the content I really wouldn't feel comfortable with it being in one of the main articles. Why not post it on your user and/or user talk page, maybe start a blog or forum about it or something? SpartHawg948 07:05, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page etiquette Response
OK, OK I get it. It's not my fault though, it's how he said. He made it sound like he doubts the whole dismembermant thing and he seen any gameplay vids and by the way I did re-read it and it still sounds the same. Mabey not as much as the first time reading but it sounds the same. I hate to be rude, but I don't care if you agree or not but yeah. Finally, though does it really matter? I shouldn't even matter in my opinion. Like the rest of us, I've seen the gameplay and I've seen that their bodies can come off. My opinion, and yes I'm putting this on the talk page, their the only adversaries that body parts can be blown off. I think that the humans can be targeted too, but not blown off. Mabey they'll drag an blood might come out, unless head was targeted. Mabey the geth as well can have parts blown off but we'll have to wait for that. So, whoo(!), with that said, I'll try do better next time.--Matt xMan 00:04, December 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * Wowee! Well, for starters, Ocd said "My understanding is that ME2 includes location specific damage (targeting heads/limbs) as a universal mechanism, so it would hardly be notable that you can target and disable specific limbs of the LOKI mech." Notice how nothing in there says anything about not being able to blow a LOKI's limbs off, just that it maybe isn't too noteworthy. Weird. Isn't that exactly the point I was trying to make? It sure was! Also, I could honestly care less whether you care or not. I'm not gonna try and not be rude. I really don't care what your opinion is, which I freely admit. I bring it up, however, because rude or insulting comments towards other users on talk pages CAN get you blocked, which is why I suggested not calling other users wrong for expressing an opinion. SpartHawg948 00:38, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

It's a free country. Stop useing vinlifying assertions because I'm certanly not. It's in our first amendment, you should know that since you're in the air force. Like you, I'm just stating what I think is right. Oh, by the way I DON'T CARE THAT YOU BOLDED! Guess what "ADMIN" anyone can do it. --Matt xMan 01:46, December 7, 2009 (UTC) (PS. Thank you, I love ranting)


 * Really? ANYONE can put text in bold? No way! I had no way of knowing that! It's not like you did it before me or anything! Whoa! Cool! Turns out though, that not just ANYONE can take a joke, as that's what my bold text usage was meant as. Also, vinfliying? Not sure what that means. I know I never claimed you were doing anything involving vinyl. And crazy thing. The first amendment does cover freedom of speech. However, in this free country of ours, private organizations ARE allowed to regulate speech to conform with their own rules, regulations and by-laws. This is a well-established principle of American constitutional law. That's why we have rules here, including the one about how rude or insulting comments towards other users can get you blocked. I know this since I'm in the Air Force, where free speech is very regulated. Again, all I ask is that you please not call other users wrong for stating their opinions. Not a hard concept to grasp. SpartHawg948 01:55, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

Fine, whatever. I'm over this. --Matt xMan 02:19, December 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Frankly, not sure what there is to get over, as all this started as me just requesting that you please refrain from calling other users wrong for expressing an opinion. As long as that happens, I'm happy. All the other stuff was introduced to this by you, and I merely answered with my usual overwhelming logic, which if I may say so myself, seems to have won the day! :P SpartHawg948 02:23, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

You vs Matt xMan
You and Matt xMan really seem to hate each other. Why? --FernanMan 14:14, December 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't know what's going on here, but is there any way you two can resolve this? --Tullis 15:16, December 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I know it was resolved last night. He made some comments I thought untoward, so I asked him to refrain, pointing out that calling someone wrong based solely on an opinion was not appropriate. He has, unintentionally I'm sure, had a rather spotty edit history which has caused him to receive numerous corrections and such from myself and other admins, and I guess this was one two many for him, as he lashed out at me. And I don't handle being lashed out at for no reason very well, so while I tried to avoid being goaded into something, my words may have served to escalate the situation a bit. Regardless, the situation seems to have been resolved for oh, about 19 hours or so, so not sure why this is even being brought up, as I find that reminders of past disputes only serve to stoke old fires. So maybe let's not ask why two people "really seem to hate each other" when 1) Nothing could be further from the truth (I don't hate him in the least) and 2) The dispute in question was resolved some time ago. Thanks. SpartHawg948 21:17, December 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies. I mentioned it because I seem to keep seeing flare-ups periodically on talk pages over different issues, and I'd rather such discussions be kept to email if possible. But if it's been resolved, that's good enough for me. Thanks. --Tullis 21:27, December 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough... not to sound like I'm trying to start something else here (fingers crossed!) but my comments about not bringing up resolved issues were more directed at FerenMan, a new editor who seems to have created an account solely for the purpose (thus far anyway) of bringing up a resolved but still somewhat contentious dispute, and that rarely ends well, which is why I tried to nip it in the bud. SpartHawg948 21:30, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not here to edit, though I sometimes edit for Halo, Fallout, and Fable. I'm actually Matt's cousin and he told me about what happened. I read the talk page and no offense but when you puted the whole "I can bold words too" I think he thought you were trying to to insult him. Something that he doesn't really like, like you hate being lashed out. Some of the stuff you said made it sound like you were a gloating know-it-all. And last but not least, when you said "Really? ANYONE can put text in bold? No way! I had no way of knowing that! It's not like you did it before me or anything! Whoa! Cool!" I'm sorry, man, but you sounded like a jackass. Look I'm not just saying all this because I'm helping a family member out. I'm not fighting for him if that's what your thinking, I'm just trying to find out why and by reading what happened it's no wonder wh you guys got into a argument. I'm just hope you guys just get along and stop arguing over a game. ( Yes I know edit video game wiki sites but I never got into an argumen, but you know where I'm getting at). So until we meet again, bye. --FernanMan 22:26, December 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, if this can of worms is getting opened again, 1) The I can bold too thing was a joke. He had himself previously bolded words, which is why I said I can bold TOO (too as in addition to) which made it downright hilarious when he came back and said, so what! anyone can bold! Talk about a Captain Obvious sighting! I was so incredulous when he said that, that I had to respond the way I did. I mean, come on. It was so blatantly obvious (and should have been even more so to him, as he was the one who started bolding words). As for sounding like a know-it-all, all I was trying to do is inform him that it's not cool to respond to someone else stating their opinion with "you're wrong". That is a total dick move right there. I tried to inform him of that, and then he lashed out at me. If he can't play nice with other editors and can't take a joke, I hate to say it, but maybe this site isn't for him.
 * And see? This is why I didn't want to bring this up again! I tried to nip it in the bud, and it should have stayed at that. But no, instead the first individual had to inform me that he is Matt's cousin, and then reopen the issue. Why can't people just let sleeping dogs lie? If you aren't here to fight your cousin's battle, than it should be clear to you that I never intended things to go this far. Matt's tone in his first response "Thanks Spart for correcting me again" is what got this going. I wasn't correcting him, just asking him not to call other users wrong for expressing opinions, but he started acting like a little kid about it. Regardless, I didn't want this brought up again in the first place, so please, I beg of you, NO MORE COUSINS!!! SpartHawg948 23:16, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

Apology
Look, dude I'm sorry about this whole argument. Look, I heard him wrong and I simply thought he meant that he didn't see any of the gameplay footage. It just made it sound like you were corecting. It wasn't that big a deal anyway. If that was a "dick-move" I would have puted "Dude, your an idot" or "Don't be stupid". There's more dick moves than you besides I put "No offense" so what was the problem. I thought as long as you put that that was fine. It's not like he was complaining and lastly it's kind of hard not fair for me to take a "joke" when it's all in text. So I can't tell a person's emotions in text. So I just wanted to end by saing I'm sorry and because I'm worried if this got on, it would've been the same argument me and CommanderTony (of Halopedia) had while back. So yeah, I'm sorry. --Matt xMan 05:01, December 8, 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I have no idea whatsoever who CommanderTony is or what any of that is about (and no, I don't care), but I WILL NOT tolerate people telling other editors they are wrong for expressing an opinion. As for no offense, no, you can't just put that in front to make something not offensive. I can say all kinds of horrible things, end with no offense, and you would still be offended. I can give you examples, in fact. A little ways up this very page some guy said to me "No offense intended, but your intelligence seems to surpass your common sense." He said no offense, but it was clearly an insult. As for whether I was correcting you, as you thought, I said "Please in the future don't make statements toward other users such as you're wrong when they are, in fact, not wrong." I don't see anything in there that sounds like a correction. Finally, as to whether or not my bold comments were a joke or not, I thought the smiley face made it pretty clear. "No problem Matt! Happy to help, again (I can do bold words too!) :)" Isn't that the entire point of emotes, to convey emotion over text? That's why I included it, so you could get a sense of the nature in which the comment was meant, since it is all just text. Please though, in the future read other users' comments thoroughly and don't respond to someone else's opinion with "Well, no offense guy but your wrong." That is just not called for. Thanks, SpartHawg948 05:22, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you, but...
Hey Spart, sorry to bug you, but can you check out this Klixen page? I got on, and an unregistered user added it. He said it was revealed in Game Informer Issue 201, but it's not showing up on the site. I may be totally wrong, but it just sounds a little made up. I didn't know what to do about it, so I just brought it up to you. Thanks :) Effectofthemassvariety 05:44, December 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sure thing! And no worries about bothering me, it's what I'm here for! SpartHawg948 05:50, December 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * Update: As of now, it does appear to be (at least somewhat) substantiated, so basically I'm gonna clean the article a bit, I will nominate it for deletion pending sources, as it is unsourced and as yet all the substantiation is still referring me to the magazine, and I will attempt to get my hands on a copy to verify for sure. SpartHawg948 05:57, December 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking into it. :) Effectofthemassvariety 06:05, December 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem! Thanks for bringing it to my attention! I probably wouldn't have noticed it on my lonesome. I'm not feeling very observant at the moment. SpartHawg948 06:11, December 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * Haha. Yeah, I know what you mean. Effectofthemassvariety 06:30, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, maybe you've seen, maybe not, but check out this link

again. They've included scans of the actual article from the actual mag. Effectofthemassvariety 01:08, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Hey, I just wanted to say thank you for the welcome and I hope I can find a place in this little community. I have actually been using the site for well over 6 months now and have been incredibly impressed so far. I just hope my opinion adds something to the discussion. --Jax Montag 08:26, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits on Kal'Reegar
Still pretty new to this wiki, so thanks for the edits. Also I have no clue how to do a 'Redirect' so you can go to that page by just typing Kal instead of Kal'Reegar etc. The reason for the character box is just to get a head start, so to speak, because a character being voiced by Adam Baldwin is bound to get a lot of attention soon enough.


 * No problem, it's my job, after all. Also, no need to do that redirect. if you type Kal into the search box, you'll see Kal'Reegar. After all, no other character has redirects based on just their first name (ie, if you enter Donnel you aren't redirected to Donnel Udina) so no need for a thus-far minor character to get a special redirect. And just because the character is voiced by Adam Baldwin, that's no reason to assume the character will be major enough to warrant an info box. After all, Michael Hogan (who is arguably as big as or bigger than Mr Baldwin in the SciFi world atm) is also voicing a character, as is Michael Dorn, and it doesn' appear that either of them will be major enough for infoboxes either. Also, please remember to sign your posts, which can be done by entering four tildes (this guy ~) at the end of the post. Thanks, SpartHawg948 06:19, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Kal'Reegar
Ja, soon enough he'll get that character box either way. Anyway the 'Redirecting' the reason I asked you about this is because i've tried just 'Kal' instead of 'Kal'Reegar' and the thing draws a blank and since he doesn't warrant enough momentum to have a redirect would maybe spacing, like so, "Kal 'Reegar" be easier to find the character or will he just be hidden as Kal'Reegar until warranted a redirect? Not that its a big problem I just know that I, myself don,t take the time to type, for example, Tali'Zorah in the search box and instead just Tali it up. --Wehrmacht007 06:36, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, A) we don't know that he'll get a character box. I for one don't believe it will happen, but we'll see. B) again, there isn't going to be a redirect because one is not necessary. We do not do redirects for partial names except in a few rare circumstances. He won't be "hidden" because if you are looking for info about him, you probably know his name already. Also, it should be easy enough to find him thanks to links from other pages. C) is there a source for the claim that he fights alongside Shepard? I have yet to see one. There is an un-named quarian in a red suit fighting alongside Shepard in the Stars of Mass Effect 2 video, but he is not named and never speaks, so there is no way to confirm if this is Kal or not. If there is no source, then it is speculation. SpartHawg948 06:41, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

A ok
Still new to the Wiki regs, so if whatever needs whatever I'll remember next time. Oh and I still stand by him getting a character box soon enough if characters like Conrad Verner and random alien Diplomats get one then it's a no brainer that a character voiced by a somewhat major actor and appears to be a somewhat major character in ME2 will get a character box as soon as a character pic is released. haha ^^ Last sentence ment to sound kind heartedly and not like a stubborn fool. Thanks again. --Wehrmacht007 06:52, December 12, 2009 (UTC)