User talk:SpartHawg948

Quck Note
Just archived all the prior content. If you need to leave a comment related to something that is now archived, I'd appreciate it if you do so here, as opposed to in the archive. With that having been said, I do understand that there are situations where it would be easier/more convenient to continue on a pre-existing thread that is now in the archive, and if that is the case, then I'll understand. My asking that things be put here whenever possible isn't a demand or an order, just a humble request. Thank you much, people! :) SpartHawg948 11:02, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * In case you find it useful: Archive-box --DRY 01:14, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

I just may do that actually. Make it look a little more professional, a little more like I know what I'm doing! :) SpartHawg948 01:40, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Mind if I steal that idea as well? Lancer1289 02:04, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking me, then yes, I do mind, dammit! :P No, I don't mind in the slightest. If you're asking DRY, well, it's my user page, so he doesn't object either! :P SpartHawg948 02:07, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice re-wording of the Terra Nova Enterprise trivia bit, btw. Much more informative now, as well as relevant. SpartHawg948 02:08, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Also I like reading your responses to things like what I asked, they always make me laugh. Lancer1289 02:11, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Collector Cruiser
On the discussion page of the Collector Cruiser you claim that there is nothing to suggest that there was only one cruiser, I must contend that this is false. First, the same ship is encountered three times in a row by Shepard and company, as Shepard himself says "more than just coincidence." Second, the cruiser contained millions, possibly tens of millions of pods, enough to supply all the Humans needed to build the Human-reaper; methodical and efficient as they are, why would the reapers waste resources building several such ships when one is more than sufficient. One could argue that having several ships is more efficient; but if the reapers had used this logic, they would have made each vessel much smaller, frigate sized maybe or genuinely cruiser sized, but the Collector "cruiser" is the size of a small dreadnought for Christsake, and the label 'cruiser' is only used twice, both times tentatively and both times at the very beginning of the game, thereafter it is known simply as a 'ship'. But back to the number of Collector vessels; the average human colony has a population of less than a thousand. The reapers would know this from monitoring of the extranet (pop. statistics are hardly classified information) and would have two strategies to choose from: send many small Collector ships to attack one colony each and return to base every time; or send one enormous vessel to gather as many as it can find in one sweep and then return to base. The advantage of the second strategy is that fewer round trips are required per sweep as well as fewer ships; a larger ship can defend itself more easily if discovered and will commit fewer attacks in one go. The advantage to this leads me to my third point, discretion. With many vessels commiting multiple attacks, there would be a noticeable increase in the number of colony attacks and something that the galactic powers would have to take note of; one ship can commit attacks and the disparity of such incidences would pass unnoticed through the statistics. One could argue that several ships makes the job of creating a human-reaper faster, but having been around for millions of years the reapers aren't exactly pressed for time. Also, this vessel(s) would have been around for thousands of years since the collectors were making clandestine deals with the galaxy for centuries before Mass Effect 1; given their exotic and lofty prices, they could hardly need a dozen ships to carry out these transactions.

My point is, the controversy of how many ships there were should be noted in the article itself, so far it rather ignorantly assumes that there were many ships, assumptions are worse than speculation but any attempt to add such speculation is always removed. It should at least be mentioned.
 * Well, let's take a looksee, shall we? The same ship was encountered three times in a row. This is true. That does not mean it's the only Collector Cruiser. It could just be that this particular cruiser was the one assigned to take down Shepard. That seems plausible, doesn't it? Sure does! Next, it contained millions of pods, enough to supply enough humans to build the Human-Reaper. Yes, it did. Eventually. But does it contain enough to deliver the number of humans required all at once? We don't know. Assuming that it did is speculation, as is assuming that the one ship would suffice for the Reapers goals. As to your 'efficiency' argument, it would hardly be efficient to use small, frigate sized vessels to attack colony worlds with the purpose of abducting colonists. As you yourself later point out, such a ship needs to defend itself. Small, frigate sized vessels would stand no chance against the defenses of, say, Earth. Which brings me to another point: How would this one Collector cruiser have taken on Earth, which was, per dialogue, the intended eventual target? The Cruiser couldn't stand up to one heavy frigate! How would it have fared against the Alliance fleet (which likely would have been using dreadnoughts to defend Earth, and likely would have had Citadel reinforcements standing by)? Pretty poorly! You offer a false dilemma with your scenario: It has to be either many small ships making many trips, or one large ship making few trips. It could be mulitple large ships, a combination of large and small ships, and so on and so forth. It's much more complex than the simplistic way you phrase it. You also claim that with more than one large ship attacking colonies, great powers would have taken note. Well, they did! The Alliance took note. Remember Horizon? Where the Alliance sent someone to check out the disappearances? This in addition to Cerberus and a multitude of smaller groups and individuals taking note. Again, it just doesn't make sense to only have one of these ships, especially in light of the fact that they appear to have intended to take on tougher nuts (such as Earth) in the near future, and one cruiser wouldn't suffice for that. Again, there is no evidence in-game that this is the only cruiser, and all you've offered here has been speculation. SpartHawg948 20:37, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Now to this. First we don't know how many ships the Collectors have. We don't know that the same cruiser ecountered by Shepard at the Collector Base is the same as the one that was encoutered the previous times. We don't know and the contriversy, as you put it, is because we dont know. You seem to want to impose your will on the article by saying there is just one, but we don't know so we say that is there currently. Second the mention of millions of pods is pure speculaiton, we don't know, and suggesting a number is speculation. Also in the beginning of the game, the ensign says looks like a cruiser, so we take that as it is about the size of a cruiser. Visual comparisons are not enough to make out the size of something, which is why we don't allow it. THe ensign says cruiser, so we say cruiser. The average human colony having a population of under a thousand, wow where did that come from. Horizon has a population of 654,930, Therum 34,000, Terra Nova 4.4 million, ande Bekenstein 5,425,000. While we don't know the rest of the populations, we can assume that 1,000 for the whole colony is a extrememly underestimated number. You have offered nothing but speculation, which doesn't back up anything you said. Lancer1289 20:46, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that either of you read a word I said, my desire is NOT to 'impose my will' on this or any other article, my ultimate desire was to have it noted down that it isn't at all clear if more than one vessel existed, its possible but NOT certain as the article implies.

I was hoping for some intelligent discourse on the issue but sadly my hopes were misplaced, instead all I get are two hysterical backlashes from two self-righteous pinheads. Please accept my profound apologies if that violates your precious guidelines on insulting other users, but I feel insulted by the patronising and willful hypocrisy of your responses. It is YOU who seek to impose YOUR wills and your stunted 2 dimensional views onto everyone else. Since you have chosen to reply, not with intelligent counter-arguments, but instead by selectively twisting and ignoring my arguments, I'm not going to waste my time pointing out everything that is wrong with your "replies".

I can say all this with all due respect, because no respect is actually due, this is turn is because no respect is offered in the first place.
 * Seriously guy? Seriously? When did I ever state that you were seeking to impose your will on the article? I never did! I stuck to your points, treated them with the full weight and respect they deserved, and answered them. And what do I get in return? I get called a self-righteous pinhead. Real classy, pal. I was doing my best to contribute to the intelligent discourse, but it seems that when confronted with facts, your favored tactic is to launch ad hominem attacks, state that you aren't going to waste your time pointing out what is wrong with my response (a sure sign that you can't find fault with them), and to storm off in a tizzy. If that's how you operate, do it somewhere other than my talk page. If you'd like to have the intelligent discourse you claim to seek, I suggest you actually try responding to the counterpoints presented to your argument, rather than resorting to childish name calling. This isn't the third grade, pal. SpartHawg948 21:24, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

"Well, let's take a looksee, shall we?" Pretty self-explanatory, that. Next, we see my response to the following argument presented by the anonymous user (referred to subsequently as A for anon, and I'll refer to myself as M for me). A:"First, the same ship is encountered three times in a row by Shepard and company, as Shepard himself says 'more than just coincidence.'" M:"he same ship was encountered three times in a row. This is true. That does not mean it's the only Collector Cruiser. It could just be that this particular cruiser was the one assigned to take down Shepard. That seems plausible, doesn't it? Sure does!" Maybe a little irreverent/flippant on my part, which I suppose could be misconstrued as me being patronizing or condescending, though this was not the intent at all. I next respond to the following- A: "Second, the cruiser contained millions, possibly tens of millions of pods, enough to supply all the Humans needed to build the Human-reaper; methodical and efficient as they are, why would the reapers waste resources building several such ships when one is more than sufficient." M:"Next, it contained millions of pods, enough to supply enough humans to build the Human-Reaper. Yes, it did. Eventually. But does it contain enough to deliver the number of humans required all at once? We don't know. Assuming that it did is speculation, as is assuming that the one ship would suffice for the Reapers goals." As you can see, my counter-argument directly addressed the issue, and pointed out that we don't have enough information here to draw any conclusions. Moving on. A:"One could argue that having several ships is more efficient; but if the reapers had used this logic, they would have made each vessel much smaller, frigate sized maybe or genuinely cruiser sized, but the Collector 'cruiser' is the size of a small dreadnought for Christsake, and the label 'cruiser' is only used twice, both times tentatively and both times at the very beginning of the game, thereafter it is known simply as a 'ship'. But back to the number of Collector vessels; the average human colony has a population of less than a thousand. The reapers would know this from monitoring of the extranet (pop. statistics are hardly classified information) and would have two strategies to choose from: send many small Collector ships to attack one colony each and return to base every time; or send one enormous vessel to gather as many as it can find in one sweep and then return to base. The advantage of the second strategy is that fewer round trips are required per sweep as well as fewer ships; a larger ship can defend itself more easily if discovered and will commit fewer attacks in one go." This one was rather lengthy, as was my response. M: "As to your 'efficiency' argument, it would hardly be efficient to use small, frigate sized vessels to attack colony worlds with the purpose of abducting colonists. As you yourself later point out, such a ship needs to defend itself. Small, frigate sized vessels would stand no chance against the defenses of, say, Earth. Which brings me to another point: How would this one Collector cruiser have taken on Earth, which was, per dialogue, the intended eventual target? The Cruiser couldn't stand up to one heavy frigate! How would it have fared against the Alliance fleet (which likely would have been using dreadnoughts to defend Earth, and likely would have had Citadel reinforcements standing by)? Pretty poorly! You offer a false dilemma with your scenario: It has to be either many small ships making many trips, or one large ship making few trips. It could be mulitple large ships, a combination of large and small ships, and so on and so forth. It's much more complex than the simplistic way you phrase it." Here, I do the following: To counter the efficiency argument, I point out that having multiple large ships makes sense from an efficiency standpoint. Further, we are left to conclude based on dialogue that the Collectors intended to target Earth. If this is in fact the case, it would be sheer madness to attempt to do so with one cruiser described by A as being "the size of a small dreadnought" when the defenses of Earth would most certianly consist of elements of the Alliance Navy to include cruisers and likely carriers and dreadnoughts. One cruiser which couldn't even withstand an attack by a heavy frigate (an advanced frigate, but a frigate nonetheless) couldn't dream of taking on Earth. Next, A makes the following point: "The advantage to this leads me to my third point, discretion. With many vessels commiting multiple attacks, there would be a noticeable increase in the number of colony attacks and something that the galactic powers would have to take note of; one ship can commit attacks and the disparity of such incidences would pass unnoticed through the statistics." To this I reply: "You also claim that with more than one large ship attacking colonies, great powers would have taken note. Well, they did! The Alliance took note. Remember Horizon? Where the Alliance sent someone to check out the disappearances? This in addition to Cerberus and a multitude of smaller groups and individuals taking note." Again, maybe a little irreverent, which again could be construed as something other than how I intended it, but the point remains. The discretion argument just doesn't fly. After all, the argument presented to oppose multiple cruisers is that the galactic powers would have taken note of the attacks. And as I pointed out, that is exactly what happened! After all, the Systems Alliance is a galactic power, one of the four Council Races. Next, A makes the following point, which I do appear to have failed to respond to, for which I apologize. A: "One could argue that several ships makes the job of creating a human-reaper faster, but having been around for millions of years the reapers aren't exactly pressed for time. Also, this vessel(s) would have been around for thousands of years since the collectors were making clandestine deals with the galaxy for centuries before Mass Effect 1; given their exotic and lofty prices, they could hardly need a dozen ships to carry out these transactions." So let me respond now. We have no idea how "exotic" or lofty the prices of these ships are. Assuming that they are so prohibitively expensive as to preclude the possibility of the Collectors possessing more than one is speculation. It also just doesn't fly to compare prior small-scale deals, with totals of beings numbering in the dozens at most, to the large-scale harvesting carried out by the Collectors in ME2. It just doesn't add up. I conclude by summing up my argument: "Again, it just doesn't make sense to only have one of these ships, especially in light of the fact that they appear to have intended to take on tougher nuts (such as Earth) in the near future, and one cruiser wouldn't suffice for that. Again, there is no evidence in-game that this is the only cruiser, and all you've offered here has been speculation." And there you have it. As you can see, no hypocrisy, no distorting or twisting of A's words (although I do admit that it appears I did overlook one point), and certianly nothing other than intelligent counter-argument (with a dash of my usual irreverence), but nothing along the lines of a 'hysterical backlash'. And with that, I'll close out this rather lengthy post. I did find this topic interesting, and do hope that the anonymous user who started this thread will return to discuss it further. We'll just have to wait and see if that happens, I suppose. SpartHawg948 22:45, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, since apparently no response will be forthcoming, let's take a closer look at this. This is not to be mean, but because I'm not a fan of (among other things) being called a self-righteous pinhead, a hypocrite, patronizing, incapable of intelligent discourse, being told that my factual and on-topic reply is a hysterical backlash, and that rather than replying with intelligent counter-arguments, I have to ignore or selectively twist arguments. So let's break down my response, compare it to the original, and see if it really is a hysterical backlash that relies not on intelligent counter-argument, but instead on distorting and ignoring other users comments. I don't want to omit anything, so I'll begin with the opening irrelevances/niceties:
 * Even though the original anonymous poster has declined to respond (kind of hard to have a discussion when one party refuses to participate), something else occurred to me a little while back that I decided to add here. The user argues "the Collector "cruiser" is the size of a small dreadnought for Christsake, and the label 'cruiser' is only used twice, both times tentatively and both times at the very beginning of the game, thereafter it is known simply as a 'ship'.", this in the section arguing that due to the (supposedly) disproportionately large size of the Collector cruiser, it would make sense that they only have one. However, I would contend that the Collector cruiser is not 'the size of a small dreadnought', and that it really isn't any larger than some other non-Collector cruisers. For an example, please refer to Purgatory, the Blue Suns prison ship. Purgatory is noted as being a 'cruiser-weight' vessel, and is noted as being very lightly armed for such a ship. And the Normandy SR-2, which would appear to be quite large for a frigate (being twice the size of the SSV Normandy), lands inside Purgatory, which again is a 'cruiser-weight ship'. So, in a nutshell, I don't believe that the Collector cruiser is too big to actually be a cruiser. Just throwing that out there. SpartHawg948 05:19, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is hard to have a discussion. However your Normandy comment about the SR-2 being twice the size, and possibly twice the weight, especially after all the upgrades, made me think. If you think about it, given today's classification of Naval warships, wouldn't then the SR-2 probably be a destroyer, rather than a Frigate. Destroyers are heavier, have more guns, and are more heavily armored. Just throwing that one out there. Lancer1289 05:28, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's actually what I kind of consider it to be. I generally refer to it as something of a 'heavy frigate', and heavy frigates are, after all destroyers. Although actually, in Navy terms, it used to work the other way around. Destroyers were what they were, and the smaller, more lightly armed ships (which today are called frigates) were called destroyer escorts. But you are correct, for all intents and purposes, the SR-2 could (non-canonically, of course) be considered a destroyer. And as it so happens, destroyers have been mentioned once in a canon source, so who knows? SpartHawg948 05:34, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed I did know that, where the terms got switched, or why is still a mystery to me, or at least why they got switched anyway. THe destroyer escorts from WWII indeed are firgates but did indeed prove themsleves at, and in my opinion one of the greatest naval engagements, the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Or if you really want to be specific, the Battle of Samar. Truely a great battle and the last one to be fought where Battleships engaged each other, mainly at the Battle of Surigao Strait. However it wasn't the last time a battleship fired its guns in anger, that was still to come. Anyway where does a canon source mention destroyer, my brain seems to be mushy and I can't remember where. Lancer1289 05:47, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha! I was wondering if I'd stump you with that one. Page 7 of Mass Effect: Revelation. The SSV New Delhi has just arrived in the Arcturus system, and the book is describing what the captain sees. "The Alliance fleet - nearly two hundred vessels ranging from twenty-man destroyers to dreadnoughts with crews of several hundred..." Basically, according to Stormwaltz on the Talk:Starships page, these destroyers are in-game frigates, and basically describes destroyers as an idea that was mentioned in the novel but never used in-game. Sort of 'cut content' of a different sort. SpartHawg948 05:53, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

MischiefMaker
Spart, yet another vandel. User:MischiefMaker. Lancer1289 21:22, June 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * And so aptly named too. --The Illusive Man 21:25, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Lancer1289 21:26, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

Article Validity
Spart, for the life of me I can't figure out this new article, The Hidden Machine. I can't remember a reference anywhere in the books, comics, or the games. If I am wrong, then please correct me, but I can't remember anything. The article seems to be a spam article because it has so much speculation, I can't even figure out what is truth. Lancer1289 06:03, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also be sure to check out my battle of the week. I felt it was appropiate for the date. Lancer1289 06:10, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was guessing that the article is about the light inside that claw in the first game, but still, it has nothing to back it up. MEffect Fan 06:13, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the user is just using it as a crutch to make the aritlce seem valid. But that's just me. Lancer1289 06:16, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know man, we are not admins so we cannot delete it. MEffect Fan 06:20, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Spart can you also check the Rogue VI page as well. This article falls under the heading of "can be covered elsewhere". There isn't enough justification to warrent its own article when it again can be covered elsewhere. Lancer1289 07:03, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

71.46.49.251
Second vandel today Spart. Please get rid of him. Thanks. He just vandalized MEffect Fan's user page so I thought I'd tell you about that. Lancer1289 06:22, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems like MEffect Fan has become his favorite target now. Lancer1289 06:29, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the delay. I was writing another paper. On the bright side, no more papers to write this weekend. Oh, wait, I just remembered some more. Lame. :( SpartHawg948 07:30, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Recreation of a article
Spart, User:FoxtrotZero just recreated the Kowloon Class redirect, to fix a broken link. This article was moved because of a misspelling and then you, or DRY, have to check the log, deleted it. Last time I checked, there are almost 200 broken links, and is it necessary to fix them all, as most are just one or two links? Can you please redelete the page. Also as it is 2:30am here, I really need to go to bed. I apologize if I over stepped my bounds here, or came across as a little accusitory. Lancer1289 07:29, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Spart I don't know if you saw this last night, but I am curious about what to do with this situation. Lancer1289 17:41, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I just noticed a problem with the link. It directed you to the wrong thing. I have corrected it. Also again I am wondering what to do in this situation. Lancer1289 19:45, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

USAF Kill Protocal
Spart, since I only have a cousin in the Navy, not a flight officer, and I am not 100% sure on this one, I need the official source. When it comes to tallying kills for pilots, it is the one who fires the final shot that gets the kill. I think that it can also go to the one who does the most damage, but this is why I am asking. Currenlty on the Talk:Mass Effect Guide page, there is a discussion about if the Normandy got the "kill" for Sovereign as its torpedo, or whatever it was, impacted Sovereign last, then wouldn't the Normandy get the kill. Again I could really use some input here, because I am not sure and as you are in the USAF, I figured you would know. Thanks in advance. Lancer1289 18:50, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup. The one who takes the shot that downs the enemy gets the kill. This is usually backed up by reviewing gun camera footage. They don't even need to be 100% sure that the enemy plane went down. They can be awarded a 'probable' if it's reasonable to assume that the enemy craft didn't survive, but probables aren't awarded as much as they used to be, mostly due to advances in technology. Ditto for ground targets like tanks and fixed targets like bridges. SpartHawg948 20:38, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks do you think you could comment on the talk page I linked above when you get some time. Also look at the video that was linked showing other shots. As I said these shots impacted before the Normandy's. So unless I am misunderstanding you, the Normandy would be awared the kill for Sovereign. Thanks in advance. Lancer1289 20:43, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look once this damn irritating 'canon' situation is taken care of. SpartHawg948 20:45, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed can you also talk to User:FoxtrotZero about redirects and unnecessary articles. It seems that he is attempting to clear the wanted pages category, however the max is 5, being the BioWare article and creating redirects/deleting all the references for every link on that page, seems like overdoing it and completly unnecessary IMHO. Lancer1289 20:49, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for talking with him about that. I appoligize if I came across as combative or any variations on that that. Not having a good weekend. Lancer1289 21:04, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. SpartHawg948 21:55, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Fixing Broken Links?
Hey mate. I made a redirect page for Kowlonn class last night (going to Kowloon Class). This was before you today enlightened me on asking people to fix links. Well I was going to leave the matter alone, but Lancer seems to be after me again, proposing the page for deletion. So i'm going to go ahead and tackle the root of the problem. If you could do me a favor and replace Kowlonn with Kowloon on this Talk Page and on your page 'Archive 3', it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --FoxtrotZero 21:08, June 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * No can do. It needs to be the person who actually wrote the comment. In this case, that would be Lancer1289. All I can do is delete the entire comment. Any changing of the actual comment itself has to be done by the author (unless the author is banned, which does not apply in this case). SpartHawg948 21:10, June 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, dear, it would seem I wasn't paying attention. I saw it was on your page, so I assumed it was yours, which was poor form of me. I'll go ask Lancer about the matter, then. --FoxtrotZero 21:12, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting out of hand. Regarding the matter with Tullis; If you would please visit User_talk:Lancer1289 as you are one of only two who can help fix the issue.
 * Wow. Sorry that my trying to be helpful and keep you from running into dead ends (such as asking an admin who hasn't been active for 5 months and hasn't been responding to messages to take care of something) is "getting out of hand". I guess I'll just stop. I was just trying to help out. SpartHawg948 22:19, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, you must have misunderstood me. By 'Getting out of hand' I was referring to the fact that, because I don't know exactly who to talk to for help here, i'm ending up going back and forth between talk pages. Hence, its a conversation across two or three talk pages that is getting out of hand, but its neither your fault nor mine that the system doesn't accomadate needs flawlessly. I should have known that, out of context, I came across quite rude. However, it is for this reason that I have created an easier way of getting the matters adressed that does not require mile long talk page sections, nor constantly bugging people. That can be viewed on my user page, if you have interest. And once more, I apologize for unintentionally insulting you. --FoxtrotZero 22:38, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Community Board
A while back (about three to four months ago) I suggested the creation of a community board on DRY talk page. The only issue left to do was to work on the wording for the forum messages, that Lancer1289 gave me a hand with today (all thanks goes to him). I would appreciate if you could take a look at Template:CommunityBoardItem and Silverstrike/Sandbox/Forum:Projects‎‎ (sorry about the erroneous naming of the page) so we can kick-start the forum. Thanks --silverstrike 22:11, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just perused the links provided above, and both look pretty good. Was there anything in particular you wanted comment on? B/c if you just want my general opinion, I like what I'm seeing, and would have no issues with it being implemented. Hopefully it can help solve some of the issues we've been having here lately... SpartHawg948 22:23, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * While I can't speak for Silverstike, I think your general opinion would be enough. I completely agree that this would help with some of the problems lately and it would be a better place to keep track of projects than you talk page. As we did with the DLC overhaul project. Lancer1289 22:36, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much what I meant. I created the form index and added the link in the forum index page. Now all is left to do is create a topic :p --silverstrike 23:04, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Krogan Trivia
Hey Spart, could use a fourth opinion here. After an overly long piece of trivia was added to the krogan article, I removed it on the point of that it was no relation. The person who added it is arguing his point on my talk page. Teugene agrees with me that the trivia doesn't relate to the krogan what so ever. So I could use a fourth opinion on the matter here. Lancer1289 00:29, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the edit confilct Spart. I was digging through Memory Alpha for the same link that you just provided, so I added it when I found it. Oops. Lancer1289 01:12, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Just another chapter in the endless saga of the edit conflict. SpartHawg948 01:13, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Weapon Damage formula for mass effect 2
i posted here the formula http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/944907-mass-effect-2/55117441

i've also sent an email to the bioware dev Christina Norman asking her to review it but that could take a while : ).

i tested it out in game ...using a memory editor to see the enemy target Shield, Armor, Health values. The procedure for testing its a bit more complicated as the game uses some aditional multipliers to account for level scaling and dificulty level but thats the heart of it.

it should help clear some innacuracies on the weapon comparison table. Peddroelm 11:05, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Race Name Caps
Spart, IIRC, we only capitalize the names of Collectors, Protheans, and Reapers. I also seem to recall that we don't capitalize husk, scion, and abomination, or am I wrong about that? Lancer1289 14:49, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Husk, Scion, Abomination are referring to specific units and are thus proper-noun, hence they should be capitalized. Teugene 17:32, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * What I ment to say was that there are some articles that have Husk, Scion, and Abomination, in caps, there are others that have them all in lower case, and still others that have a mix of caps and lower case. I would just like some consistency here with this. Lancer1289 17:41, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is true. Scions and Abominations are pretty clear cut and should be capitalized. Husks on the other hand are a little tricky. As Spart explained once to me before, if it's referring to the specific Husk unit(s), it should be capitalized. If it's referring to multiple husks in general (Husk, Scion and/or Abomination), then it is not capitalized. Just like for example, you have Blue Suns Commando and Eclipse Commando, if you're referring to all of them, you would say "commandos", not "Commandos". Confusing? I had been there before! Teugene 17:47, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * P/S: Hmm, I thought there was a Blue Suns Commando, turns out there's only a Commander', so I was wrong on that. But you get my point anyway. Teugene 17:51, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict x3) Uh, my brain hurts from trying to figure that out, and from seeing that implemented. I think just a general rule with this one would be better becuase I can clearly see capitalizing Asari Commando, but husks that one is very tricky because you can't be sure what they are refering to, units or in general. Personally a general rule here would be good, but that is my opinion on the matter. Lancer1289 17:55, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is difficult and it can be really tedious. I guess the best way is to carefully understand the context of the sentence and alter it correctly or change the sentence to be less ambiguous in its reference. Teugene 18:02, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I forget who I spoke to about this before, but the long and short is, if it refers to the specific unit (which is generally the case with the walkthrough and class guide articles), they get capitalized (i.e. Husk), but if it refers to husks in general (as is the case with most references outside of the walkthroughs and class guides), no caps. SpartHawg948 19:25, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it was me, sir! Teugene 02:35, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * On another note, I think the confusion also comes from the fact that the Husk article is referring to both husks in general and the specific unit, which cause a little inconsistency with the other adversaries/non-sentient pages. Do you think the different topics should be separated or remain as it is? Teugene 02:40, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of good images and unnecessary information
Hey Spart can you please drop User:Drell123 a message about some of our policies here. He uploaded an images, File:Thane Character Box.png, that was of poorer quailty than the current one. Dammej and then myself reverted back to the current and more higher resolution image. Then he reverted the File:Legion.png to a worse image and Darkman 4 got that back to the better, more colorful, and higher resolution image. He also uploaded an image, and then proceeded to insert it into the Shadow Broker article, which I am still trying to figure out if it is vandalism or not. He has also added some completly unfounded and unsourced information to the Biotics article. Also he has just modified another character box image. Can you please drop him a line becuase he just doesn't listen to anyone apparenlty. Lancer1289 18:51, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Overlord Release Date
Um Spart, I think I am going in circles here. It was my impression that we only take the BioWare site as the official source for DLC release dates, or am I wrong here. I have been shutting it down all day, but JoePlay just added it to the news bar on the main page. Um, I am at a loss on this one, so I'd like your opinion on this. Lancer1289 23:58, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'd say that Major Nelson's XBox Live report would also be a legit source for information on DLC. SpartHawg948 00:49, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright then, I really just wanted an official position here. I make the necessary corrections. Lancer1289 00:50, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not like the "June" release date ever came from an "official" source either, right? It's always been "coming soon" on the DLC site. It's just a matter of trustworthyness of a source of information. As SpartHawg already mentioned, MajorNelson is a pretty trustworthy source. Dammej 00:54, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that the June release date was from a statement by BioWare I just can't remember where. However, I have never heard of MajorNelson before so I didn't know if it was official enough for our purposes. That is why I kept reverting, so I asked for an official decision here. Lancer1289 00:57, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually right after I said that I browsed the news archives on the Bioware site, and I see "coming in june" mentioned there, so I guess I was wrong there. Shouldn't that be the policy for most future announcements anyway, though? As long as the sources for information are verifiable and trustworthy, they could be used in the wiki, correct? Dammej 01:01, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem there is some sources sometimes include informaiton that can't be backed up, or in some cases contradicted by other sources. As with the Overlord pack, some sources said extra weapons, contradicted by other sources, and you can see where this is going. That is why I thought the BioWare site was the only reliable source. However I have already linked MajorNelson's page to my favorites and after pursuing his archives, he is really accurate and I agree with Spart that that can be another of our reliable sources. Again I wasn't certain so I figured I'd ask. Lancer1289 01:08, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Major Nelson, the gamertag of Larry Hryb, is the Director of Programming for XBox Live. So yeah, pretty legit, and a man who knows the skinny on all sorts of upcoming games and DLC and such. SpartHawg948 01:10, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the edit conflicts Spart, but I just figured I'd ask. And I just pursued the article and I'd agree that it is a extrememly ligit source. Lancer1289 01:13, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Hey Spart I just wanted to appoligize for bringing something to your attention that shouldn't have. I thought I had done the research on the new source, Major Nelson, and I concluded that it was a blog, not a source. It seemed like one, so again my appoligies for bring an issue to your attention that shouldn't have. Lancer1289 02:02, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries! A little caution never killed anyone... well, at least not around here it didn't. I suppose in some other places, like the battlefield, but not here! :) SpartHawg948 02:16, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

new page - Weapon Damage Formula
Hi I added a new page.

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Weapon_Damage_Formula

I realize its not up to wiki standards ( my english sucks, also i lack artistic style) so maybe u could get some one to clean it up :) . I belive the data inside is solid

Also it kind of invalidates some of the DPS calculations on other pages witch would have to be updated aswell.

Sorry if i choose the wrong person for this message (wiki contributing is new to me) but u seem like somekind of overlord of this place.Peddroelm 10:13, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

188.126.193.96
Hey Spart could you drop this guy a message in addtion to the two of mine. He has been adding incorrect informtion about the Infinate morality points glitch in ME, the Lorik Qui'in one, and is basically saying that it can't occur on the PC, which it can. I have seen it happen and it happened to one of my own files, so it can occur on both. He has done this now five times and I believe that it is edit war territory. Thanks in advance. Lancer1289 19:49, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind you already did. Lancer1289 19:50, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

He did it again Spart, figured I'd let you know. Lancer1289 20:19, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Twice now, Spart. Lancer1289 20:58, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. Was out running errands and such. SpartHawg948 21:19, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * None necessary, I really need to get back to the class guide overhaul, had to write a paper. Lancer1289 21:22, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

ME2 Power icons
Hey there Spart. If you take a look at the Talents and Powers pages, you'll notice something markedly different between the two. The talents page has images that look like they do in-game, while the Powers page has images that look, well, incomplete. I've taken on the task of getting in-game shots of the Powers in ME2, much like how they ME images look, and I'm wanting to replace them all. I just wanted to run this idea by you before I start changing a bunch of images and making people mad. Good idea? Dammej 00:04, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * My opinion here is, upload, but not replace, a few images, so we can see what they look like. I think a first look would be better here than just changing the whole thing and questions being asked. I think a forum vote might also be in order. I'll look into that. Lancer1289 00:11, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Here's the AI Hacking icon I got from in-game: ,

The current (ME2) AI Hacking icon: ,

and the AI Hacking talent icon for ME:

Personally, I prefer the icon from in-game, as it maintains consistency between the two games in this wiki, as far as displaying power icons goes. Dammej 00:28, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, indeed the images from the game do look better, and more inline with the ME images. However, this is my opinion on the matter. I think this one needs a vote from the community, like in the forums. I can look into that, pending Spart's decision. Lancer1289 00:35, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer the in-game icon. I never liked the one with the black background anyway. Teugene 03:06, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * (conflicted) I don't really feel like it would be necessary to put this sort of thing to a "vote" per se, since I feel like it's a pretty obvious improvement. The current images were taken from preview videos about ME2, prior to its release, byJakePT. The fact that they haven't been brought up to the in-game feel that the Talent icons have is just an oversight. I admit that I'm biased here, so my argument should probably be taken with some salt, but I'm pretty sure that the outcome of any community vote would be "well of course we want the icons to look better." I'll just wait for Spart's comments on the matter before I argue it any further, however. Dammej 00:50, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the in-game ones do give it a bit more consistency, which is is always a good thing. I'd be fine with them being put into place on the Powers page. SpartHawg948 02:56, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded all the files, including a new Unity icon for ME2. I had thought about removing the count from the icon, but figured I should find out if it's a problem first. Dammej 03:26, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice work, they do look great. As to the number, IMHO, I don't see a problem with it. Lancer1289 03:27, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

...Finland
Hey, I was just reading over your user page there and its real quite intresting and informative. One little iffy though, you said that there hasn't been a case in 3,000 years where two Democrasies have gone to war with each other, and though this is the general consensus, its not entirely true. Britain declared war on Finland during the Second World War due to the Fins declaring war on Russia. Though it was only a war on paper; no forces ever marched on one anothers soil, I thought I might just be a little pernickity.^^ Your argument's sound as it is, and putting in "oh, but there was that whole phiascho with Finland..." really would do nothing for it, I just thought it might be intresting to alight you to this info in case you didn't know it.^^
 * Oh, I know all about the Continuation War. However, it's generally not considered a case of two democracies going to war for two reasons. 1) They didn't really go to war. Finland declared war on the USSR, and then the UK (as the USSR's ally) declared war on Finland. The UK and Finland never actually fought though. I think the UK launched one or two small bombing raids, but that's it. And 2) Neither the UK or Finland were exactly model democracies at the time. Elections had been suspended in the United Kingdom, and many additional powers had been given to the Prime Minister. And in Finland, Field Marshal Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim was essentially running the country as a military dictator, as the President had ceded the position of Commander-in-Chief to Mannerheim, a position he kept during the Winter War, the peace that ensued thereafter, and the Continuation War. Additionally, the ruling coalition cracked down on dissenting opinions, to the point of imprisoning members of rival parties, which is behavior typical of an oligarchy, not a democracy. So no, I know all about the Continuation War, and actually discussed it in my paper, and it most certianly is not a case in which two democracies went to war, as they didn't go to war, and they weren't democracies at the time. SpartHawg948 02:44, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'm back....
Oh but I am back... 70.109.177.178‎‎, user:NiRv4n4, 64.222.97.201, all me. Mister. So, what will it be now? 50 lashes? An end to this IP as well? Oh, I'll be back, as the man himself once said. Though I actually won't. The amusingness of my tenure bugging the hell out of you freaks has worn off quite a bit, and I think it is time for me to retire. Just wanted you to know, though. You and your zombies do a good job of being on this site 24 hours Every Goddamn Day. Seriously. Or... Suriusly... Mischling 06:48, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well Spart I think a preemptive block is in order here for this one. IMHO of course. Lancer1289 06:50, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Nothing preemptive about it. A clear-cut case of sock-puppetry. SpartHawg948 06:51, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oblivion, Etc Stuff
I had Oblivion on the PC (still miss my saddlebags that didn't require me to knock out my horse), I got it on my 360 Arcade (before this recent birthday where I got the black 120gb version) because all of my friends and family members in my generation got it on 360. It's not too different than the PC version, other than not having useful mods. Unlike Dragon Age Origins, which is completely different on the consoles than it is on the PC not in story, music, etc but gameplay and item stats. It's simply intolerable on consoles if you've been exposed to the PC version of the game. I got bored with DAO quickly though, I didn't even bother with Warden's Keep, Return to Ostagar, etc. Most of that extra content was supposed to be in the original game anyway, the toolset is full of evidence supporting that theory (including Stone Prisoner stuff, just check out Redcliffe in the toolset if you're able Wilhelm's Cottage is that first house on the right when you enter Redcliffe and the shopping list in the general store was originally a bill of sale of a "crystal rod" sold to the barkeep Lloyd). Plus I just recreate any items from DLC using the toolset if I want them bad enough. All in all it's rpgs with me, or first person shooter rpgs like Borderlands, Fallout 3 (though I do occasionally use VATS). Beyond that I am mostly just a fan of strategy, and the occasional mech game (Armored Core, MechWarrior, etc). Mictlantecuhtli 12:51, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Very nice! I mostly do my gaming on the 360. I had a first-gen one until it up and red-ringed on me, at which point I shipped it back to Microsoft, and rather than fixing it they just sent me a new one. I recently upped my hard drive to the 120gb version as well. On the console I do mostly RPGs (like Oblivion, Mass Effect, Fallout 3, Fable 2, and DA:O), shooters (the Halo and Gears of War games), and a few others, the usual suspects- Mercenaries 2, and I recently got Tropico 3 for the 360, which is buggy, but fun once you get past the bugs. On the PC it's mostly strategy stuff. The only games I ever really play on the PC are Sins of a Solar Empire, Hearts of Iron II, and Star Wars: Empire at War and the Forces of Corruption expansion. And as of now, there are really only three games that are coming out soon that are on my radar, those being Fallout: New Vegas, Fable 3, and Halo Reach, although I am also eagerly awaiting Mass Effect 3 (duh!) and the as-yet untitled Elder Scrolls V. On the last one, I've heard two main theories- either it'll be set in Stormwind or in the Summerset Isles. Personally, I'm hoping for the latter. I'm a fan of the Altmer, and the Summerset Isles just sound really cool. SpartHawg948 23:18, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Being bold?
I am very upset that you voted against the quote change on Illusive Man. Just kidding. :) I actually tend to agree, having seen your reasons. I would make a very bad politician. The real reason I'm posting here is to seek your comment about my thoughts, as seen on Lancer's talk page. I'll just summarize it briefly here (hopefully):

I feel like headquote changes aren't really as "major" as Lancer makes them out to be. At least not in the same category as changing an entire section of an article. He made it seem to me that a talk page discussion should preclude any change to the headquote, which I vehemently disagree with. I would think that the default action with most, what I consider to be minor, changes should be to make the edit, and then give arguments on a talk page only after there's opposition to the change (a la: a revert).

Basically, I'm trying to apply the super-idealized "be bold" edict from wikipedia to this wiki. Is changing a headquote before discussion really being "too bold?" You tend to make very cogent arguments, so I figure if anyone would change my mind, it'd be you. Dammej 08:23, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yes and no. Here's the deal, or the down low, as the kids say. (I love talking like an out-of-touch old white guy) In and of itself, just changing the headquote doesn't require discussion. However, once a headquote is changed, and then reverted back to the original (especially if it's done by one of those admin-types), if the first person still thinks it should be changed, then it does need to be discussed on the talk page, as that starting to drift towards a potential edit war. I hope this answers your question, and if it doesn't, please let me know! :) SpartHawg948 09:04, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that does make sense, and is precisely what I was attempting to communicate. I'm ok with people disagreeing with a change to an article, I just think the default behavior of an editor should be to make the change, and then discuss it in depth on the talk page only after it's been reverted. That sound about right? Dammej 09:10, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed! Sounds spot-on! SpartHawg948 09:20, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fantastic. Thank you for your advice and patience. :) Dammej 09:28, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's what I do! And no need to thank me for the patience bit. I was sitting here for six hours writing papers for environmental science classes and watching city council meetings. Getting away and helping out here was a welcome relief! If anything, I should be thanking you! SpartHawg948 09:33, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I guess I was in the wrong here, and I fell asleep on my desk last night. Well I'll be sure to remember this in the future. Just a suggestion, wood doesn't make for a good pillow. Lancer1289 15:43, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

Nelyna/Saphyria
I'm not sure what your objection is to the inclusion of the possibility that said asari MAY be the daughters of Erinya. It seems a likely hypothesis given the naming similarities, skin complexion, and based on whom the player has met in the game. I'm not suggesting that it's a given but you seem to dismiss even the possibility of it being so. 99.238.167.207 04:13, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * The only evidence is extremely circumstantial, and that is being generous. There are multiple asari who work for the Consort, and given that the asari themselves most likely have an embassy, Saphyra likely isn't the only asari working for or in the embassies. Your comparison of them to the Aleena/Aria situation is specious, as there is much more to go on with that theory. At least it isn't based solely on the fact that a woman has tw daughters who work on the Citadel, so these two must be them. And that's my objection. There really is no evidence. SpartHawg948 04:16, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Weapon Damage formula for mass effect 2 - dev review
The bioware dev made a post on the discussion page for the weapon damage formula. Please check it out Peddroelm 07:12, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * So... she says it's close. Close as in nearly correct but not entirely correct. Further reinforcing the need to delete the article and move it to the forums. SpartHawg948 07:21, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Wanted Files: Suggestions?
Hey there again. As part of my personal mission to eradicate all entries from the Special:WantedFiles list, I've taken several screenshots of armors from Mass Effect. All the files in that list are there because the ItemsList template expects them to be there. Someone who had all of the images apparently never finished. Well, I should have everything finished now. I only needed 5 new screenshots... every other file in that list is a duplicate of some other armor. Thats 60+ files that aren't particularly "wanted", just alternate names for things that already exist. So there's the situation... 60 files that are wanted, but they already exist on the site, under a different filename. I've come up with 3 ways that this could be rectified. I'll list them in increasing order of personal preference:

1. Modify the ItemsList template to somehow know which armors are duplicates of others. Given how complex this template is, I'd rather not dive into it to make it an even BIGGER mess.

2. Simply upload the duplicate files under their expected names. I'm not fond of this solution, as it would seem to be a giant waste of space. If that's not a problem, or if the wiki back-end is somehow smart enough to deal with it, I guess I could live with doing a bunch of uploads.

3. Create the wanted file... but only as a redirect to a file that already exists on the wiki. I've tested this in my sandbox, so I know it works, at least as far as getting the image to display. I'm currently refraining from doing this, as I have no idea how these pages will behave as far as searching goes, or whether some other problems might crop up that I've not thought of.

I'm throwing a lot of text your way, I'm sorry. I just figure you might have a good idea how to handle this sort of situation. Is one of my suggested solutions good? Is there something else I've not thought of? Is it called Soccer or Football? These things I don't know! Thanks in advance for your input. Dammej 08:39, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, bear with me here, because of all the admins, I'm the least versed in templates and all that. Would it be possible to just insert the existing images of the correct armor into the template? Using the proper names and all that? If so, that would seem to me to be the easiest fix. The template was created by silverstrike, and IIRC, he was just on the other day, so maybe talk to him about it? In fact, I'd recommend leaving him a message regardless, as he's sure to know more about it than me! If, for some reason, this is not possible, I'd be fine with either #2 or #3, although #3 seems slightly preferential. I'll take redirects over redundant files any day. As for your other question, I'd be inclined to say it's Soccer, and not football... but on the other hand, my city did just vote a week ago in favor of letting the San Fransico 49ers build their new stadium here, so maybe I'd better say football just to be on the safe side! :P
 * P.S... I'm signing off for the night, so if you leave me a follow-up message (and feel free to, btw) just be aware it likely won't be answered for at least 8-9 hours, and maybe longer, if I don't have time to check the wiki before I have to leave for class. Well, it won't be answered by me, anyways. Someone else could always respond! SpartHawg948 08:57, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... and it seems you have already talked to silverstrike about this. Although the conversation seems to have been left sort of open at the end. Maybe shoot him another message, see if he responds with the feasibility of altering the template to include the proper files? If not, you have my opinions on the options above. Not a fan of #1, could live with either #2 or #3. SpartHawg948 09:01, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Element zero Page
Hey Spart after adding some new planets to the Element zero page, I was just wondering why the title is Element zero and the redirect is Element Zero? I mean it is capitalized in the Codex/Technology section, so why is the article lower case? I was hoping that we could just move the article's contents to the redirect page, Element Zero, and turn the Element zero page into a redirect. Should this require a move tag and discussion or can we just move it? Lancer1289 20:25, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. SpartHawg948 20:32, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow that was quick. Thanks again. Lancer1289 20:36, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

About my post on Jack
Hi. I found the info "If Shepard had casual sex with her, sides with Miranda during her argument with Jack, or if he breaks off their relationship, Shepard will not be able to converse with Jack and she will retort with "Fuck off!" when she is approached. Siding with Miranda will also cause Jack to be disloyal," on Jack page. Then, because I usually access the talk page by typing the page address in the address bar, the auto-complete feature made me go to Jack: Subject Zero page. I had posted there before I realized that I misplaced the post. The post should have gone to Jack page. Then I reposted. Okay, what I meant was that that information should go into the Romance section, because it contains a plot info, not in the Trivia section. Sorry if I misused the word "proper". It's because I always thought that Trivia is not "true" information, just interesting tidbits that bears no effect whatsoever whether you know them all or oblivious of them completely. Braveangel 04:09, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Liara hallucinations
It is not the very last mission though, I went in the following order; Feros, Noveria, Therum, Virmire(Where I am going), Virmire is a plot world and I had not done that when I got this convosation about hallucinating, so surely it should be changed? Ilovetelephones 08:01, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the very last mission in as much as it is the last mission you do out of the initial three (Feros, Noveria, and Therum). SpartHawg948 08:04, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't beleive it is written concisely, it doesn't say "out of the initial three" it says "very last mission" Virmire is reguarded as a plot world. It is even mentioned as such in the guide for Ilos "Prerequisite: Completion of all missions on major plot worlds — Therum, Feros, Noveria, Virmire" Its up to you but I think it needs to be amended at least to be clearer. Ilovetelephones 08:13, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Amended like I already did immediately after posting my last response? :P SpartHawg948 08:14, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Apoligises, you didn't mention that and I was busy playing Mass Effect as an Engineer on insanity. XD Ilovetelephones 09:22, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I didn't mention it. I made the edit after posting my response. I don't feel it's necessary to announce every edit I make. If I did, I wouldn't have time to do anything else, as 7,348 announcements would take a while. Additionally, I made the edit you suggested nearly ten minutes before you suggested it, and had no idea you left the message and left. I assumed if you'd expressed an interest, that you were keeping at least somewhat of an eye on the page, at least enough to check it before leaving me a message about it. SpartHawg948 09:28, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Fixed width
Hey, do you happen to know how I can tweak my settings to display this wiki's pages at a fixed width like with the Red Dead Wiki and Command and Conquer Wiki? I like the aesthetic and find it a little easier on the eyes. So is this something I can do for just myself, or is it something that has to be for everyone and I'll have to settle for the current layout? -- Commdor (Talk) 23:12, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying, but honestly, I haven't the faintest idea. Sorry... SpartHawg948 23:14, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Darn. Guess I'll have to poke around. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:16, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Gallery theme
This might be another of those template things that I should look to someone else for help, but I figured I'd give it a shot. When I added the gallery of images to Armor, I noticed that the images have giant white backgrounds on them, and the button for "Add an image to this gallery" is barely visible. I think this is because the wiki uses whatever the default theme for galleries is, whereas the rest of the site has a customized theme. The two don't seem to mix well together. Do you know if there's a way to customize how galleries look on the wiki, or are we just stuck with what we have? If you don't know, who would be the best person to talk to about it? Thanks in advance. Dammej 23:25, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not sure. I would suggest talking to DRY, another of the admins, or possibly to silverstrike, who I believe you have spoken to previously. SpartHawg948 23:32, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * That was my thinking. Thanks! Dammej 23:34, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Opinion about a possible change to a template
I've been working on adding pics to the various enemies pages. While there, I've been fixing any missing information that's in the AdversariesME2 template. In one instance, I had to add an armor stat that was missing from the enemy. On the page itself, it displays as "Armour: ...", so I figured the parameter for the armor stat should be armour = ... Imagine my suprise when I added that parameter and it didn't do anything. I changed the parameter spelling to armor=... and voila! It worked.

The only reason I noticed it was because I had to go back and make the change in a separate edit. I know this is treading on extremely sacred ground here, but I wanted to ask it anyway: Would there be opposition to changing the template to display as Armor: ... instead of Armour: ...? I'm arguing from the ease-of-use standpoint for editors wishing to change articles. Many people could make the same mistake that I did, assuming that the parameter name is armour, but then not noticing that it doesn't work.

I'm expecting an "absolutely not" answer here, but I figured I'd ask anyway. Dammej 08:04, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if there's one thing I've got in spades, it's opinions, so if you want those, you've come to the right man! :P You, sir, are correct. I have no objection. In fact, it seems to me that this is one of those rare instances in which we can state that there is a right spelling, similar to how when an actual piece of armor is being described, it's armor and not armour. So yeah, I do not object at all. SpartHawg948 08:08, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that was unexpected. If an admin is ok with it, then I'll go ahead and do it. Thanks for the input. Dammej 08:14, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

188.82.188.87
Spart, I am informing you of this one becuase it won't show up on the activity feed. This person got into the Prerequisite template, and replaced the entire thing with inappropiate content. At least this one was clever as I didn't catch it until I dug through the templates. Lancer1289 20:09, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I checked the recent changes page after seeing a number of edits that removed the template from several pages. Very sneaky. This brings up an interesting point: Should the template namespace be semi-protected? Dammej 20:16, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to. We protect pages very rarely on this wiki. I can recall maybe 4 or 5 times its ever been done. This is the first time I can recall seeing the templates vandalized like this. It'd take more than that for me to think about protecting it. After all, edits to the templates do show up on recent changes, so they shouldn't be too hard to spot. SpartHawg948 20:19, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about semi-protection though. If I'm not mistaken, that just makes it so that only an auto-confirmed user can edit a page. This is the same restriction that's in place for uploading files. The reason I'm arguing in favor of this is that Templates very rarely change, and don't often need correcting grammar edits. Semi-protecting them would stop a "drive-by" vandal from editing the templates entirely. Like you said though, the changes still show up in the "recent changes" list, so it's not really an -urgent- change. But I still feel like the template namespace could do with a layer of protection. Dammej 20:45, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why even semi-protecting the templates is necessary. Most people who vandalise don't know what a template is, and that is why this was a unique case. Because of that, I really don't see why protecting them makes it worth it, most don't know what they are. Lancer1289 20:50, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict... sigh) I dunno... give me a while to mull it over. You make some good points, but you're also talking to the admin least likely to support imposing protections on pages. What can I say? My libertarianism spills over even to the wiki! :) I'll give it some serious thought, as you have started to sway me. Just know that, either way, I am thinking about it and won't dismiss the idea out of hand or anything. SpartHawg948 20:54, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's about all I can ask for. :) Some more thoughts: Perhaps the entire template namespace might be going a bit far, but certain templates that are pretty much "finished" like the stub, pics wanted, etc tags for pages would be good candidates. Dammej 20:58, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Request for comments RE: ME2 Enemies template
Hey, I'm working on making a common "Enemies" footer for pages which have enemies that appear in Mass Effect 2. This type of footer is seen on many game wikis. The one I'm trying to emulate in particular is the one on the fallout wiki, e.g., the footer seen at the bottom of this article. Ideally, this footer would be collapsible (especially since it is so large), but I'm not quite sure how I'd accomplish this yet. If you could take a look at the template in my sandbox, and leave any comments/suggestions/criticism you have at the talk page there, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! Dammej 02:06, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum: If you find that the template would be a worthwhile addition to the wiki, I'd like to enlist your help to add the necessary javascript which will allow the table (and any table in the future, for that matter) to be collapsed. Let me know if you're up for it. :) Dammej 03:13, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

If you can dumb down the help you'd need to about... oh, a fourth-grade level or so, I'll be happy to help. Again, this sort of thing isn't my strong suit, so I essentially need to be told where to go and what to do when I get there. SpartHawg948 03:45, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it should be simple enough. You just need to do a cut-and-paste job for me. Let me know if anything needs further explanation:

 Go to the template page and copy absolutely everything in the "code" box below the template itself. Open MediaWiki:Common.js for editing, and just paste the code from step one at the end of the file. I believe it's currently empty, so you can't break anything if you somehow paste it incorrectly. Then just save the page. That should be it! 
 * Thanks, and again let me know if I should explain anything further. Dammej 03:53, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well. I won't be doing it right this second, but it will be done within the hour, likely within the next 30 minutes, and I'll try to remember to leave a note here and likely elsewhere. SpartHawg948 03:59, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Another annoying request from me. :) As it is now, the template will sometimes wrap a link like Geth Prime (a link with a space in it) onto two separate lines. This looks ugly. To fix it, I need your help again. If you're willing, just copy this code: //Code from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Common.css //Prevents line-breaks in links (only) when we don't want them. .nowraplinks a, .nowraplinks .selflink {  white-space: nowrap; } To MediaWiki:Common.css, at the end of the file like you did with the javascript. (Note: This is indeed a different page, so don't go to the same one that you did before). Let me know if you think this is an unreasonable request so that I may sulk. Thanks! Dammej 02:15, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Holy crap! How did you know I had just gotten home? That's uncanny and borderline disturbing... :P SpartHawg948 02:19, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it's not like I'm psychic or something. I'm just watching you. All. The. Time.


 * Also, it appears I've screwed up the stupid comments for my code. Too many languages (excuses). Change what you just added to this:

/* Code from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Common.css Prevents line-breaks in links (only) when we don't want them. */ .nowraplinks a, .nowraplinks .selflink { white-space: nowrap; }
 * After you do that, I promise I'll turn off the cameras. Dammej 02:28, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Huzzah! It's working. Hooray for blackmail! Dammej 02:52, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed! :) SpartHawg948 02:56, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks eagle eye!
Thanks for helping to revert back my user page. Being on a semi-hiatus makes it difficult to track updates but I know you have an eagle eye on things like this! ;) Teugene 11:12, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * What can I say? It's a gift. Like my own private Spidie-sense. 'Oh no! Someone's been tampering with userpages! Quick! To the Spart-Cave!' (cue cheesy '60s Batman 'to the Bat-Cave' music) :) SpartHawg948 02:21, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

take a look at this
http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:M-15_Vindicator#False.2Finnacurate_weapons_info Peddroelm 15:48, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Spart there is really no need to. This guy is arguing over a point that needs to be taken up with the game developers. You know we use averages on this site, and that is what he is arguing over. We use averages on the Mineral Scanning, and if I put what I pulled out of a planet, I'm positive that you would pull something different. He is arguing over averages and I think that he is also just trying to make his point becuase his page was deleted. I think that he will try to point out every inconsistency on the wiki with our weapon comparison stats, which we both know are averages. Also they were done by Dch2404 and Silverstrike, so I think they are averages, which are good enough. If I remember correctly, they use averages when talking about military weapons as well. I mean by that, not all M-16 have a exact range of 600 yards right? Lancer1289 16:42, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Something I'd like to discuss
Hey Spart, after looking at your user page, I was wondering when you have your finals? There is a matter I wish to discuss and I really don't want to distract you too much. Lancer1289 22:26, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm about 1/2 done w/ them at the moment. I have one this evening, and I have another tomorrow, although that one will consist solely of me walking into the classroom and handing my professor a paper. So, feel free! I'm mainly using finals as an excuse to be lazy anyways. :) SpartHawg948 22:30, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright then, it is mainly about the matter I asked you about 2 months ago. If you think this should be done via email, I'll understand. Lancer1289 22:34, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I recall what you're talking about. My memory is rather... well, craptacular, but I do think I recall a certain something. If I am remembering correctly, I'll have to run through the same procedure as last time. I do think (speaking strictly 'unofficially' here) that opinions may have shifted somewhat. So, if I remember correctly, I'll start the ball rolling here in a day or so. If I'm completely off-base, feel free to shoot me an email. I hope this rather cryptic message helps! :) SpartHawg948 22:39, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * It helps and you are right on track. The reason I am bring this up again is for a few reasons, Tullis isn't back yet, and I'm sure both of us thought she would be by now, and a new comment by DRY on his talk page, just made me thing about this again. I don't want to impose here, and I realize that is hasn't been a lot of time since that, and I hope I don't seem like I am imposing. Lancer1289 22:43, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. You are correct in your thinking. It has been a little hectic, and it is unfortunate that Tullis isn't back yet (although I know she has her reasons for being away) and that DRY is also similarly busy. I've been a bit busier than usual lately as well, though after today that'll subside a bit. It'll be a pretty light course-load for me over the summer quarter, so I'll have more free time. So, let me make the arrangements, such as they are, and we'll see what comes of it. SpartHawg948 22:48, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright then, let us see what becomes of it. Lancer1289 22:50, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Spart, anything yet? Appoligies if I seem a little pokey. Lancer1289 22:24, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but... it's sort of up in the air at present. Sort of in a transitional stage. Give me about a day or two and I should have a definitive answer. SpartHawg948 22:26, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 10-4. Lancer1289 22:29, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Spart, just sent you an e-mail, appreciate any response, thanks. Lancer1289 21:13, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Crazy kid! I just sent you a rather lengthy email. Check (among other things) the front page in a few. SpartHawg948 21:30, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * So yeah, not that it would seem to matter now, but I never received any emails, and it's been nearly an hour. Maybe our emails crossed paths, and my much larger and more verbose email trampled yours? Or maybe the internet swallowed it up, kind of like how dryers swallow socks. Odd... I'll have to ask Al Gore about this next time I see him. He did invent the internet, after all. (actual interview, 45 seconds in). :P SpartHawg948 22:04, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Mass Effect DLC Guides
Spart, this was brought to my attention by Teugene, see my talk page for more, and I agree. Teugene suggested that we delete the Downloadable Content Guides page and move the assignemts associated into respective articles. I.e. Bring Down the Sky (assignment). Also move the Pinnacle Station stuff into the Pinnacle Station: Combat Missions article, as I believe that is the Jorunal Entry, need to double check that. Then we delete that page altogether, and reformat the Bring Down the Sky and Pinnacle Station articles to look more like the DLC packs that we have now, like Overload and Firewalker Pack. This would be more inline with the standards we have now. What do you think, as I can get started on this later? Lancer1289 18:25, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Spart got a favor to ask, since I have moved all the content from the Downloadable Content Guides page to more appropiate places, the page is now just taking up wiki space, and requires deletion. The talk page is a very old discussion that with the new standards is mute. Just let me know what you are going to do. Thanks in advance. Lancer1289 00:37, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Spart, Tuegene just pointed something out in the sidebar. Becuase the DLC guide page has been deleted, the Mass Effect link there still goes to the page. I was just hoping you could remove the link under the Downloadable Content heading. Since we just have the ME2 heading direct to the ME2 page, I think just removing the "Downloadable Content Guides |" is enough. Also under the Novels and Comic heading, if you could please add Mass Effect: Incursion to the list. Also since there are two comics now, I think chaning the heading to say "comics" would be appropiate don't you think? Thanks in advance. Lancer1289 04:32, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Downloadable Content
 * Downloadable Content Guides | Mass Effect (Needs to loose the Downloadable Content Guides)
 * Books | Novels and Comic
 * Mass Effect: Incursion
 * You two must be seeing something I'm not. I see


 * Downloadable Content
 * Mass Effect
 * Bring Down the Sky
 * Pinnacle Station
 * Mass Effect 2
 * All the ME2 DLCs
 * I don't see any Downloadable content guides link in the sidebar. The other thing I can do though. SpartHawg948 04:41, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just figured out what you're talking about. Sorry, no offense intended, but your description of the problem was a bit on the vague side. SpartHawg948 04:44, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * My appoligies for the vagueness of my comment. I guess I should have mentioned that it was on the page itself and doesn't appear on the sidebar unless you click it. Again my appoligies for the vagueness. Lancer1289 04:47, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow that is funny how that came out. Not my intention for the "my appoligies for the vagueness" to line up like that. When I saw it, that just cracked me up. Appoligies in advance for any edit conflicts. Lancer1289 04:49, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * No need! There were, happily, no edit conflicts. Well, I may not have gotten it at first, but I am, as they say, smarter than the average bear, and was able to puzzle my way through it eventually. :) SpartHawg948 04:52, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Opinion
Hi I used to edit on here a while ago but have being away and if i remember rightly you were a good admin (If ever so slightly aggressive :} though you were always honest) so I wanted to ask your opinion on something if you have the time. I recently got given the Admin of End War wiki ( Mainly cus the site was dead truth be told) the site was terrible still is really but its getting a lot better if you go on their look at the Wolves and Pioneer article history you will see what i mean. But I'm rambling :} I found something on a users page that annoyed the hell out of me. http://endwar.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Pi_face_dude now I would like to belive the user isnt a stupid internet twat because quite frankly I cant understand the reason for posting something like that its pointless ad two faced sneaky twatish and a few more choice expletives. Basically I would like your opinion on weather you think the user posted to himself and secondly if I responded in the correct fashion, truthfully I dont think I did too aggressive and not the correct language though I didnt have a rant. Oh and sorry for name dropping you you and the Tullis user just have the highest edit numbers i can recall. Anyways thank youDC 21:21, June 24, 2010 (UTC) No problem thank you for lookingDC 21:41, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Give me just a bit, if you please. I've looked it over and am mulling it all over, but am about to step out for a bit. I will respond fairly soon though, definitely by the end of the day. SpartHawg948 21:36, June 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * All righty, here's my thoughts on the matter, answered in the order the questions were presented. I do think, given what I've seen, that it is likely that the user self-posted while not logged in, or that barring this, the anonymous user is a friend or roommate of this Pi face dude, as it does seem a bit unlikely that the user 'just happened' to respond so quickly. It is possible that the two are entirely unrelated, but I doubt it. Now, as to the second question- You were, I think, correct in responding, but I do think it could have been done a bit more tactfully. You were, as you state, a bit aggressive, and the language could have been a bit more polite, but at the same time, I don't think that you were too over-the-top. I would recommend in the future that you do be mindful of your wording in the future, but at the same time, don't be reluctant to respond. It's mainly a matter of making sure that, when you do respond to something of this nature, you don't do so in a way that will 'fuel the fire' and keep it going. Basically, your heart was in the right place, it just could have been worded a little differently. Anyways, I hope this helps, and congratulations on your admin-ship. I hope it goes smoothly for you! :) If there is anything else I can do, or if you have questions about this response or whatever, you have but to ask! SpartHawg948 23:10, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Editing Templates
Hello Spart, could you do me a favor please? I'm looking for a manual on editing templates(particularly ME2:Adversaries), because I got images to insert, but I can't do it without help. Leave a few links if possible. Thanks in advance :)
 * I don't believe that we have a manual on templates at present, so I would recommend speaking to one of the editors who is familiar with the subject matter. And I, frankly, am not one of them. I would recommend speaking to Dammej. In fact, if the template you are referring to is the one I'm thinking of, Dammej is actually the one who created it. Silverstrike is also fairly knowledgable about templates, but hasn't been as active lately as Dammej has. SpartHawg948 02:14, June 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! I'll do it as soon as I can.Harbinger265 02:25, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

A Question
Hi, I'm new here but I have one question. Could you tell me whether or not these two edits I made that were undone are trivia or not? I'm new to this wiki, but I've done work on others and it seems to me like they fit at least somewhere in the article. I would just like to get a second opinion, or at least a clear definition of trivia,

Here are the pages before my revisions were undone:

http://masseffect.wikia.com/index.php?title=Dark_Star_Lounge&oldid=126634 (my revision is is the last on the trivia)

http://masseffect.wikia.com/index.php?title=Reaper&oldid=126635#The_Cycle_of_Extinction (my revision is the second to last paragraph in the section. If it doesn't belong there, does it at least belong in the trivia?)

Thanks in advance,

Gordonimo2


 * Well, I can say that the second one is definitely not suitable for an article, whether in the main body or trivia, because it just doesn't seem factual. After all, there is no indication that a massive orbital bombardment of a planetary surface is part of the Reaper cycle of extinction. In fact, worlds like Feros would seem to contradict this theory, as this world and several others mentioned in the games are sprawling ecumenpoleis in which the buildings are still largely intact, enough so to allow them to be used by colonists.
 * As for the second, I'd also be inclined to remove that from the article. It just isn't relevant, or for that matter interesting. And that's really what trivia is. It's info that is not really suited for the main article itself, as there really isn't a proper place for it, but which is still interesting enough to get into the article. And the Dark Star bit just wasn't interesting. So, there's my answer! :) SpartHawg948 06:00, June 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me just jump in here, had my laptop closed because Wesker just couldn't die, but I finally got that RPG down his throat. Anyway the reason I reverted

Reaper edit are just a repeat of what Spart has already said. It is speculation, which I am still trying to figure out why I didn't put that in the edit summary.
 * As to the Dark Star, that didn't belong in the main article for the same reasons as already stated. But to me it doesn't belong in the trivia section because mentioning that the Dark Star has very few assignmetns associted with it, is like saying that Afterlife has many missions, or that you can't go as many places on the Citadel in ME2 compared to ME. It just seemed to trivial to me to be worth mentioning. Lancer1289 06:16, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

fag...
ur a major fag republican. lol its funny how u redneck fags claim to hate black people yet its so clearly obvious that u love big black cock in ur mouth. fag.
 * Really what is your problem. You have never edited here before, unless you are yet another sock puppet for our favorite person who has nothing better to do with their time than vandalize here. Lancer1289 02:26, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 1) I'm not a 'fag'. 2) I'm not a 'redneck'. I'm from the Midwest. 3) I've never once claimed to hate black people. 4) The Republican party doesn't claim to hate black people. It was founded as the anti-slavery party, after all. And the chairman of the Republican National Committee is Michael Steele, who last time I checked, was African-American. Get your facts straight before you spout your ignorant, hate-filled drivel here. SpartHawg948 02:27, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Idiots posting from mobile phones. I wonder if it's that same Brit whose edit I undid, then explained to him that 'normalcy' is in fact a word. IPs are similar, though it seems a silly thing to get mad about. And really, if you want to criticize me for my political affiliation, at least do it from an American IP. I don't go around calling Labour party supporters idiots (though it is tempting. I mean seriously... Gordon Brown? Really? That's the best you could come up with to run the country?), because I'm not a British voter, so it's not my place to mock British voters for belonging to a party I dislike. Show some courtesy, please. SpartHawg948 02:34, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I really hate when people do this but it seems that IPs are almost always the cause for these types of things. You would think people could be civil about these things, but alas we always seem to be proven wrong. Why do some people put up such a fuss when their edits get reverted, even when you take the time to point out why their edit was wrong? My theory is that those people fall into the "I'm always right and everyone else is wrong" category. Lancer1289 02:38, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * yes gordon brown is also a fag but ur the guy who voted in george w. bush the ultimate dumb redneck fuck up so that seems mighty hypocritical to me. and if the decisions of ur dumbass fag presidents didnt affect the lives of of so many others in the world then maybe i wouldnt be so quick to criticize them.

Right. That dumbass who was actually smarter than either of the guys he ran against. That redneck from New Haven, Connecticut. I never said that Bush was perfect (he's far from it), merely that it'd be appreciated if you not bitch about things that you frankly don't know anything about. What decisions has he made that have affected you? Really? What decisions? I'm dying to hear this. And how do you know that I'm either a Republican or that I voted for Bush? Unless you're just assuming that. Sort of like how you assumed that I'm some kind of huge George W. Bush supporter. And you know what they say about assumptions and people who make them... SpartHawg948 03:12, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Like his genius idea to go to war with Iraq? which he had no right to do so. he came up with bullshit evidence that they had weapons of mass destruction hidden somewhere (and to date they've never found any), put pressure on my country to help him invade, and during the process of which got thousands of British, Iraqi, and lets not forget AMERICAN people killed. All just because that dumb inbred redneck shit wanted to use someone as a scapegoat for 9/11. So i think that pretty much covers ur idiot presidents affecting other people's lives outside their own country. And its obvious you're a rebublican, any idiot could read ur page and they'd know that you're an intolerant republican prick.
 * Seriously? That's it? Iraq? Wow. You're blaming the wrong guy, pal. All it would have taken was Tony Blair saying 'No'. Blame your own Prime Minister for taking your country to war, not my President. As for having the right- you are dead wrong, pal. A little fact anti-war folks like to overlook. The 1991 Persian Gulf War did not end with a peace treaty. It ended with a cease-fire. On of the conditions of that cease-fire was that if Iraq violated the terms, any of the Coalition nations could resume hostilities with Iraq, no questions asked. And guess what? Every time Iraqi units fired on, or acquired missile locks on, US or UK aircraft in the no-fly zones (which they did many times), they violated the cease fire. So much for your inane 'he had no right' argument. Additionally, WMDs HAVE been found in Iraq. US forces have found mortar rounds containing mustard gas, and Polish troops found bombs loaded with cyclosarin. Sure, WMDs weren't found in the quantities expected, but they were found. Do some fact-checking, please. As for scapegoating for 9/11, the Taliban in Afghanistan harbored Al Qaeda and refused to turn them over to the US. No scapegoating there. And George Bush never attempted to pin 9/11 on Iraq. Once again, fact check. So basically it boils down to you throwing a tantrum because YOUR OWN LEADER TOOK YOUR COUNTRY TO WAR. George Bush didn't do it. Tony Blair did. And again, how do you know I'm a Republican, or that I voted for Bush? I have comments praising both Democrats and Republicans on my user page, and you have no idea how I voted. So please, if you want to dig yourself deeper, keep it up. I find this highly entertaining. And please don't try and call me intolerant. Last I checked, only one person here is demonizing others for having views they don't like, and that's you. Talk about intolerance. SpartHawg948 03:49, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * oh wow they found a few mortar rounds containing mustard gas...big deal, its nothing in comparison to what that dumbass claimed they really had, like missiles loaded with chemicals that could reach london or wherever within a few hours. Anyway the point is, he didnt have sufficient evidence. Just because a few minor chemical weapons have been found since then doesnt justify usa declaring war on iraq. and besides im sure america has tons of of chemical weapons at its disposal, and most countries are bound to have developed a few chemical weapons, so what makes iraq an exception? tony blair is also a retard too for following bush but bush influenced him all the same so in that way it is partly his fault for Britain being involved with the iraq war. and if you arent intolerent then why so much hatred for communists?
 * oh wow they found a few mortar rounds containing mustard gas...big deal, its nothing in comparison to what that dumbass claimed they really had, like missiles loaded with chemicals that could reach london or wherever within a few hours. Anyway the point is, he didnt have sufficient evidence. Just because a few minor chemical weapons have been found since then doesnt justify usa declaring war on iraq. and besides im sure america has tons of of chemical weapons at its disposal, and most countries are bound to have developed a few chemical weapons, so what makes iraq an exception? tony blair is also a retard too for following bush but bush influenced him all the same so in that way it is partly his fault for Britain being involved with the iraq war. and if you arent intolerent then why so much hatred for communists?

Wow. First you say there were no WMDs. Then, when proven wrong, you say 'well it doesn't matter anyways'. Once again, he DID NOT NEED ANY PROOF TO GO TO WAR. As soon as Iraq opened fire on any coalition aircraft (which they did many times between 1992-2003), any coalition nation (such as the US) had the legal right under international law to go to war with Iraq. As to your next point, no, the U.S. does not have chemical weapons. President Richard Nixon (a Republican) ordered all U.S. chemical and biological weapons destroyed, and amended U.S. laws and national security policies so that the U.S.A. has a 'nukes only' WMD policy. What makes Iraq an exception is that it signed a cease-fire that bound it to international laws saying it couldn't have WMDs. Simple as that. As for Blair, there were many other world leaders Bush attempted to influence who... big shocker here: SHOWED A LITTLE BACKBONE and said no! Blair could have done that, but he didn't. So stop blaming Bush. It's Blair's fault that he couldn't summon the backbone to say no like Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroder did. It's nit Bush's fault. Finally, I am intolerant of communism the ideology. I don't respect any political ideology that has directly led to the deaths of over 100 million innocents. I don't automatically disrespect people who identify as communist just because they identify as communists. You, on the other hand, are demonizing me just because you believe I am a Republican. That's the difference, and why you are being intolerant. SpartHawg948 04:16, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's been well over 24 hours and no response. I don't want to sound like I'm gloating or anything, but I did make some pretty good points there. I mean, you can't exactly argue that your leader was 'forced' to do anything when other leaders received similar pressuring... and said no. And it is hard to defend the most murderous and destructive political ideology of all time when the debate is framed that way. But honestly, that's why I dislike communism. At best, it suppresses individualism and subordinates the rights of individuals in favor of the state. At worst, it is literally mass murder. 65 million civilians have been killed in 61 years by the Communist government in China. That's more than 1 million every year. And in Cambodia in just 4 years, the Communist Khmer Rouge killed one third of the country's population. Imagine that. After only four years of the Communists being in power in Cambodia, 1 in 3 Cambodians was dead... all at the hands of the Communist government. It's hard to stick up for an ideology that produces those results. Oh well, now I'm rambling. I made my point, and this debate does appear to be over. SpartHawg948 09:39, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Getting some opinions
Hey Spart, was wondering if I could get your opinions on two things on the Talk:Turret and one thing on the Talk:Drones page. Thanks Spart. Lancer1289 03:04, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Changes to FA
Spart, why do you have a link to the Random Page when there is quite obviously a random page button below it, could you please revert this back to the way it was, specifically with the link to the daily news.203.206.229.177 03:57, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the wiki is having problems becuase it has been like that all day. I just checked where we contol the sidebar from and it is still the same. So I think it is a problem with the wiki or with the servers at Wikia. Lancer1289 03:59, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not reverting any of the updates to the sidebar. That took too long to come up with and implement to undo like that. If there are specific changes to be made, that can be done, but there will be no reverting, at least not on my part. SpartHawg948 04:01, June 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks anyway guys, keep up the good work.203.206.229.177 04:02, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

NP. Hopefully like Lancer says, it'll work itself out when Wikia figures out the problem. If not, we'll take a long hard look at the sidebar and see if there's anything we can fix. SpartHawg948 04:04, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just noticed. Looks like its sorted itself out. SpartHawg948 05:26, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed it has, good thing to becuase that other one wasn't really helpful. Lancer1289 05:29, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Problems with a move
Hey Spart, since it has been seven days, I was trying to move the Demeter (Planet) article to Demeter because I though the (planet) was unnecessary. Even though I am the only one who voted, it has been up 7 days and no one objected. Currently the Demeter link goes to the Timeline Codex and I really don't think that was good becuase it doesn't have info about the planet. If you don't object, I could use a hand. Lancer1289 05:28, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Lancer1289 05:36, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

We seem to keep tripping over each other
I continually find it hilarious that we keep tripping over each other. Whether it be editing, especially with edit conflicts, leaving messages, or undoing edits. As I stated somewhere in an edit summary, I have lost track of how many times we have edit conflicted each other, or left similar messages on talk pages. Lancer1289 23:31, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And I'm constantly undoing edits, hitting submit, and then finding out that you did it just before me. Well, you know what they say about great minds! :P SpartHawg948 23:32, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed I do. Lancer1289 23:34, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary Movement of Articles
Spart, please correct me if I am wrong, but we don't move articles without some discussion as to why. JackPT just moved the Artificial Intelligence and the Mass Effect Field articles for no apparent reason. I dug through the MoS and I believe he was referencing the General guide, not the sylalized one we use. Both articles are capitalized in the Codex so I am failing to see why these articles were moved. Lancer1289 07:36, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me be completely honest with you -- right now I honestly have no strong feelings one way or the other, as it's getting pretty late which, combined with a power outage this morning that cost me about 2 1/2 hours of sleep, has rendered me too tired to ponder my way through this stuff. I will say though that I do agree that moves like this should be discussed first. So, with that in mind, I believe you have already undone the moves, in which case the articles should stay where they are for now, with a discussion of the proposed move started up on the relevant talk page(s). SpartHawg948 08:45, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oddness
Is it just me, or have the lines that appear under headings on all articles been moved above the headings now? -- Commdor (Talk) 17:40, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I too see this. No one changed any of the CSS on our end though- looks like something wikia recently changed. It's likely a mistake. (edit) Yeah it looks like this on pretty much every wikia page. Hopefully it'll get fixed soon. Dammej 17:58, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wowee. That is really odd. Hopefully wikia will get it sorted out. It seems like they've been having some issues this week. SpartHawg948 18:34, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed they seem to having a few issues this week. However this issue seems to have resolved itself as everything is appearing normal again and the edit signs and headlines are back above the lines. Lancer1289 20:50, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Commenting Question
Is it against the rules to purposefully post a comment between two different preexisting comments? I ask this because I'm not sure if it does in fact count as modifying another's comment since you have to move their comment down to post yours or if its just a rude thing to do. The incident I'm referring to is this where a user posted something in a long dead conversation just before the last post. I don't have anything against the post, I just couldn't figure out if the placement violated the rules.Bastian964 02:14, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Posting a comment in between two prior comments is fine. I've done it myself on a few occasions. If it's pertinent to the comment you add it immediately after, it can actually make things less confusing, although if it seems to have nothing to do with any comments around it, it can be seen as rude or stupid, but no, that isn't a violation of the rules. On the other hand, adding a comment into the middle of ONE preexisting comment is a violation of policy, as that is considered editing someone else's comment. SpartHawg948 02:19, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks.:) Bastian964 14:59, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

ME2: Calculating Star Masses
Hey Hawg, how is everything?

Rather than repeating myself, I'll just leave this here for you to read.

Awaiting your good feedback. Fiery Phoenix 17:17, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Grammar
Hey Spart can I get a second opinion here. It has been my understanding since 1st grade that in in the English languge, a singular possessive noun like Garrus, it is perfectly acceptable to add just the ' to show posession. This is what I have been taught, but User:Dibol says that that is wrong. After doing some looking around Wikipedia and other sites, I have found that this seems to fall into the local use issue. I don't know what you've been taught but I really could use a second opinion here. While Wikipedia isn't the best source for things like this, I found this, apostrophe which seems to back up my argument. This also seems to me to be something along the lines of the whole US vs. UK spelling issue. Lancer1289 04:17, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * It sure is one of those issues. Either is acceptable, but in my rather lengthy and professional writing career/experience (we're talking grade school, high school, college, and Air Force English and grammar lessons), I've always found the apostrophe at the end to be preferred. Always. And just to add, you may not think so, but proper grammar and the ability to write formally is huge for a noncom in the AF. SpartHawg948 04:21, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that, but unless I am reading you wrong, Garrus's is wrong to you while Garrus' is right? Lancer1289 04:23, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Lancer and I both have had conflicting information regarding this. From my personal experience, I was taught that my usage was correct, and it is my understanding that both our (my teachers and Lancer's) may have different writing styles, so in a sense, we may both be correct. This is what I posted on my page, as well as Tullis's page just in case she checked back in out of the blue.

Link: http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/apostro.asp

Copy of a portion of Rule #2 on this particular page:

NOTE: Although names ending in s or an s sound are not required to have the second s added in possessive form, it is preferred. (bolded for key emphasis)
 * Mr. Jones's golf clubs
 * Texas's weather
 * Ms. Straus's daughter
 * Jose Sanchez's artwork
 * Dr. Hastings's appointment (name is Hastings)
 * Mrs. Lees's books (name is Lees)

Dibol 04:24, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as your data shows, (and I will be quoting here) "Although names ending in s or an s sound are not required to have the second s added in possessive form, it is preferred.". Again, not required, but preferred (although again, in various institutions all over the country, from the Federal Government through college on down through K-12 I've never seen one instance in which it was actually preferred), but clearly it is not the preferred form here. And, as neither option is wrong, merely being a difference of preference, I see no need to change one correct form that has been in use for several years now (with no objections until today) to another correct form on a whim. SpartHawg948 04:27, July 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * For the sake of not escalating to an edit war, I'll leave the page alone, just to keep the both of you happy.Dibol 04:30, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Indeed and I complely agree. This issue hasn't come up until today and as I have already stated on Dibol talk page, preferred = optional. It seems to come down to what is the accepted standard, and here s' is accepted. Lancer1289 04:33, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Well when you put it that way... almost makes us out to be bad guys for simply having the nerve to prefer the other completely valid grammatical style. You know, the one that no editor objected to at any time in the past three years. If you want, I suppose you can phrase it as 'just to keep the both of you happy' (though to me it seems more accurate to say that any change, since no one in three years objected, would be made just to make you happy, but I digress...). SpartHawg948 04:37, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Trojan detected on promo site
Hey Spart, just want to let you know that on the promo site in todays Daily News (sharpstickintheeye.com) has at least five different Trojans lurking on it, I put this on the discussion page as well, just a heads up. Comb4t Kn1f3 03:27, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

CAW4
Spart can you please have a civilized discussion with him because I can't seem to apparently. He is currently edit warring over Mordin's article and making an edit that both myself and Arbington agreed was unnecessary. Also his last edit summery violated our language policy, and I quote "JUST. FUCKING. STOP." seems to be an insult directed at me because he just can't seem to accept the fact that it was 2-1 on unnecessary edits.
 * Yeah, this guy does seem somewhat problematic. Arbington 05:34, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked the language policy just before the edit, and it does not go against it. It was an adjective being used to show intensity for a verb, it was not being used as an insult against you, nor was it in the edit itself. It did not violate the language policy, and until just recently, Arbington's position was fairly unclear. Up until that point it was a 1 on 1 discussion, with another person with an opinion that, until just recently, could have been taken two different ways. CAW4 05:39, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Well civilized discussion just went out the window. Spart please talk to him. Lancer1289 05:55, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Now edit warring on two fronts, Mordin Solus and turian articles. Lancer1289 06:02, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * The Turian article has yet to become an edit-war. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. Arbington 06:05, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, really? Keep trolling, since apparently all you and lancer need are your undo buttons. CAW4 06:07, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * And now insulting. Lancer1289 06:09, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Trolling? I think not. I have remained quite civil throughout this whole situation, though admittedly you have tried my patience. If an edit is unnecissary, it is undone. Add something of value to the wiki, and I will be the first to defend you. That is, if you don't continue to make a fool of yourself. Arbington 06:13, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he is referring to me Arbington, and I have remainded civil, though my patience is wearing thin at this point. Lancer1289 06:15, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have looked at both your 'contributions' pages, and see nothing. Everything either of you do is simply undo anything that appears, or call it "unnecessary" or "not trivia" on talk pages with not actual reasons to back up what you're saying. You're just undo trolling. CAW4 06:16, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Holy crap! Take a couple hours off to watch a documentary, and look what happens! Wowee... looks like I've got some reading to do... SpartHawg948 06:19, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) When I undo something it is becuase of a valid reason, not just because I want to. The Mass Effect Wiki:Manual of Style is quite clear on trivia and this one isn't in line with it. So I don't troll, I just uplold the standards that you seem to be so quick to defy. Most people would be satisfied with that, but you just can't seem to let any issue go easily. Lancer1289 06:21, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you need to edit that badly, there are many inactive wikis out there that could use your help. Please cease to terrorize this one, though. Arbington 06:25, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I edit on many more wikis than this one, and my experiences on those would show you two banned for trolling via edit button within a week of you joining. I can understand upholding standards, but you go way too far. You basically delete anything that appears whatsoever. You neither contribute anything, nor allow anyone else to. CAW4 06:29, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * You really don't pay attention to this wiki, do you? If you did, you definitely wouldn't accuse either of the other users of not contributing anything or of preventing others from contributing. Fact check please. SpartHawg948 06:32, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Really I don't contribute anything. I wrote most of the walkthoughs for this wiki for ME2 and ME. I have cleaned up the walkhtoughs and am still in the process of doing so. I have created many articles in line with standards for enemies, and have added on to many articles. Saying that I don't contribue anything is a downright lie and insulting to say the least. Lancer1289 06:34, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, I contribute very little. I help with grammar mostly. But Unlike you, I do not negatively impact the wiki. This has gone on for quite a while, and it needs to stop. You aren't the victim here. And frankly, I pity you for an entirely different reason: you seem to honestly believe that whining about your problems will make them disappear. it won't. Man up, and accept that you were wrong. Arbington 06:41, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything that helps the strength of an article helps the wiki, and so therefore every who makes a postive edit helps. You have a positive impace Arbington, as every little bit helps, and a nice person to converse with. You manage to keep things civil, and I wish the same could be said for others. Lancer1289 06:44, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just want to point out too, CAW4 claims to have checked the language policy before making the edit with the attached summary that was mentioned above. I, however, seem to have found at least two things that CAW4 overlooked. "Offensive language, either toward other editors or in articles, is not tolerated." (In the section on 'Language'). Dropping the F bomb is often regarded as offensive. And "Crude or offensive language" is listed as a reason for banning. Again, generally speaking, in polite society (which the community guideline suggests be used as a baseline), the F-bomb is viewed as crude and/or offensive. Again, just throwing that out there... SpartHawg948 06:48, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I thank you for your compliments, Lancer, though I'm by no means one of the most helpful members of the wiki. Perhaps I'll be able to contribute more actual information once Mass Effect 3 comes out. Arbington 06:50, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

98.134.167.215
Hey Spart, since I had nothing better to do, I dug through the page history for the turians, and found that his guy is either User: 6101 Sinful Monument, or User: Zyzzvya01. However based on the fact that Zayzvya01 didn't add a Halo reference to the turian article, and 6101 did, and that is the only reference to Halo until today, it seems to be that this guy was 6101. So making false claims about creating an article. Check the page history if you don't believe me. Lancer1289 07:24, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I believe you. I similarly had nothing better to do, and it looks like I was just a bit behind you. I was going to the aforementioned anon user's talk page to mention the facts you listed when I saw you had just finished doing it. I also noted that, far from two years, the Halo info lasted four months before our diligent admin from the UK nixed it. SpartHawg948 07:31, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * What is this country call the UL that you are referencing? Lancer1289 07:34, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Duh! University of Louisiana! :P SpartHawg948 07:48, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh that is what you were referencing. :) Lancer1289 07:48, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Telon
About why you changed my edit for Telon.

He did get punched but was not incapacitated. After when his brother tells him to get out, he does reply "Can we go home now?"

I'm pretty sure getting knocked out means being unable to talk. As far as I know he was just knocked over.

So I was just wondering why you undid my edit.

Saltpeter1 04:39, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Because he was knocked out, even if only for a few seconds, knocked out is the term to use in this situation. Getting punched usually implies that the person who got punched staggers back, and not down to the floor and unable to respond. Knocked out is much more accurate in this case. Also just to note it is possible to get knocked out for just a few seconds. Lancer1289 04:45, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Never said he got incapacitated, just knocked out. He gets hit, falls to the floor like a sack of potatoes, and then remains there until he is helped, clearly dazed and disoriented and just regaining consciousness, to his feet, at which point he asks "Can we go home now?" Again, as I said in my edit summary, the previous version was more accurate. Punched is EXTREMELY vague. You can punch someone with a gun without impairing at all their ability to then shoot you in the face. Or, you can punch them so hard, they get knocked out. Since there is so much wiggle room within the term 'punched', I felt it better to go with the more accurate version. SpartHawg948 04:46, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Then wouldn't it be better to say he got knocked down or knocked over?

Saltpeter1 04:56, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well he wasn't knocked over, and while he was knocked down, this was due to his being knocked out. After all, people who are just knocked down generally don't just lie there for several minutes while others (including the person who knocked them down) converse around them. You know who does do that? Someone who has been knocked out. SpartHawg948 05:00, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Figured I'd let you respond first Spart as it is your talk page, but I'd agree as well. He was knocked down becuase he was knocked out. People generally don't just lie around while people converse, so knocked out is much more appropiate. And you have gotten to answering my talk page before me as well. Lancer1289 05:03, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry for the snippy edit summary. I pulled something in my back earlier, and it's pretty f-ing painful, so I've got a bit of a short temper at the moment. SpartHawg948 05:06, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * My sympathies then, I have pulled many muscles, and quite a few in my back, so I know how that feals. Lancer1289 05:09, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Dual-Advertisement
Hey SpartHawg, you remember me right, Kamikaz from the Mass Effect Fanfiction Wiki. I was wondering if the fanfiction wiki and this wiki could start up a bit of a partnership. What I had in mind was providing links bridging our sites together, that way both of our wiki's would grow larger in the process. Let me know what you think about this.--Kamikaz 20:27, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Also, Regarding the Web Browser
Hey again, SpartHawg. I know this will seem completely out of the blue but I had noticed that in my we browser, when I come to this sight a little mass effect "M" appears next to the site's URL. I was wondering, could you tell me how to do this please?--Kamikaz 20:36, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Rollin', rollin', rollin'
Thanks, I'll take it, I've had some experience with it during my time at Wikipedia and it is definitely a good thing to have on hand for vandals. And I appreciate the recognition, it can't be too easy to finangle into your good graces, can it?

As for the e-mail thing, sorry. :) I'm kind of paranoid when it comes to technology, I'm not too fond of putting my e-mail out there willy-nilly. But it wouldn't have been the best route for you to take anyway, I sometimes go weeks without checking my inbox.

And you're an Ohioan too? I actually hail from the Atlanta, Georgia area, but my family moved up to Maineville, Ohio (Warren County, near Cincinnati) around five years ago. I like to think I'm as good as native now. Attending OSU and learning to hate Michigan has to count for something, right? -- Commdor (Talk) 23:39, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Now worries about the email thing. I was just giving you grief for the sole purpose of giving you grief. And indeed you are as good as native. I moved to Ohio at age 10, after having lived in various Southern states (not Georgia though), and yes, it's really the hating of Michigan that makes a true Ohioan! :) SpartHawg948 23:44, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Good to know, good to know. And thanks again for rollback. Fear me, Vandals! -- Commdor (Talk) 23:53, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Sticky note
I hate to harp on it, but I have once again remembered a certain infamous category. I want to go all Scott Jurgenson on it myself, but I lack the requisite trident. Since your last tally, opinions on the category's fate appear tied at 7-7. I say admin's prerogative should be the deciding factor, but I'm obviously biased. Anyway, a very belated happy Independence Day, when we need to reflect on our country's humble beginnings and what makes it great today. -- Commdor (Talk) 03:44, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * From humble beginnings indeed. Anyway to the topic at hand, I just ran a tally on the page, and unfortunatly we are outvoted on this one by either 9-7 or 9-8 becuase I can't tell where Darpod016's vote lies. I did the tally by looking through the history and tallying each new comment by a different user. So here are the results
 * Keeping: 24.15.168.110, Raitchison, 24.11.121.192, 68.35.134.75, 70.254.193.203, Hefe (IP 131.137.245.206), RogueJedi86, 71.82.40.39, and 68.173.19.79
 * Deletion: Tullis, SpartHawg948, Silverstrike, UNCxTrinity, Commdor, Lancer1289, and 164.107.236.194.
 * Again I don't know where Darpod016's vote lies, but either way we are outvoted on this on. I don't like the category becuse to quote Silverstrike, "The category is misleading both in name and content", but we appear to have been outvoted on this one. Lancer1289 04:12, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that video is about how I remember hearing it in school. That rascally Thomas Jefferson... SpartHawg948 04:58, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Questions
Hey Spart just two quick questions about the Category:Candidates for deletion. I'm still getting use to the ropes, so hopefully I will be able to avoid questions like this in the future unless I have no idea. Thanks. Lancer1289 05:18, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I was looking over the images and noticed many of them have had the delete tag for some time and I was wondering if we can just get rid of them all?
 * 2) The categories for the various clusters, systems, and planets were discovered by DRY and myself and as he put them all up for deletion, should we just get rid of them all? DRY described them as "it describes Universe structure, which is better suited to the mainspace".
 * Well, if they've been tagged for a while, and there's no objection, then sure, delete them. The main reason many of those are still around is that I'm pretty haphazard with deletions. I think of it every so often, delete a bunch of stuff, and then forget about it till the next time. And indeed, go ahead and show those categories you mentioned the proverbial door. Just make sure (I probably should have mentioned this in my email) to check and see if any of the stuff you're deleting is linked to elsewhere, by using the 'What Links Here' button. You probably already know this, just making sure... SpartHawg948 06:54, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed I do, also the ME2 Conquences Category has had some new activity, and the delete tag is back, so I have asked Darpod016 to clarify his position on deletion or keeping the category. Lancer1289 06:57, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I left a blurb on Commdor's page too suggesting one course of action. And then, in the back of my mind, a joke my old supervisor said a couple times occurred to me. Back in 2008, before the election, when there was that brouhaha about ACORN cooking the books and registering all sorts of non-existent and ineligible people to vote, my flight chief came up to me and asked me to help him register to vote early, and he told me 'I'm going to vote early and vote often'. So maybe some of that mindset might break this tie? :P SpartHawg948 07:01, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * That would do the trick. I've recast my vote for deletion there. Maybe in this new straw poll, the straws will finally break that category's back. And what's with BioWare releasing new DLC with no prior announcement? And Dragon Age DLC, too? I'm woefully unprepared, I had planned to invest most of today playing Crackdown 2. -- Commdor (Talk) 17:07, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * New DLC? Sweet Cow of Moscow! And for DA:O as well??? Sweet... something of... someplace! (Apologies to Hermes Conrad) SpartHawg948 17:12, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, two packs in one day, well I guess I'll just have to geth them both will I. Anyway with the new votes, more people have voted making it I think 11-9 in favor of deletion. I guess we will just have to wait and see. Also can I get some more opinions on the Insane Scientist article. Personally I think the information can be covered elsewhere but I'd like to see more opinions on the page. Lancer1289 18:58, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Well that category looks a lot better now. I finally managed to get around to a massive deletion craze and now only one question I have. Most of the remaining images are on talk pages or a forum page, so what is the rule there, remove or leave them? Lancer1289 02:12, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have to say... don't delete them. SpartHawg948 02:30, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger that. I'll take down the delete tags however so they aren't clogging up the category. Lancer1289 03:09, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

While You're Here
Just noticed you were active at the moment, was hoping you could take a lookat my version of the N7 Armor page.

I find the current page to be very hard to navigate and is a bit of a mess, so I made an alternate version, but I didn't overwrite the old, since I wanted to get an admin's approval first. Cheers. JakePT 17:12, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Approval denied. SpartHawg948 17:15, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just kidding, of course! :P SpartHawg948 17:15, July 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm sold. I much prefer your version. It is, as you say, easier to navigate, and it's much more visually appealing, which is big to someone like me, who possesses a short attention span and is easily distracted by shiny things. SpartHawg948 17:19, July 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks, but come to think of it, the N7 Armor page is basically a duplicate of the customisation section of the Armor page. I think a good idea is to shrink the N7 Armor page to only the N7 pieces (like the Kestrel Armor page) and move what I've done to the N7 Armor page to the customisation section of the Armor page or, alternatively, break out the customisation section into its own article. The Armor article is getting pretty unwieldy as is, since it has Upgrades, Pieces, Sets and Casual Outfits all on there in, pretty much, full. Personally, I think it would be wise to either split the Armor page into an Armor ME1 and Armor ME2, or break out Upgrades, Pieces/Customisation, Sets and Casual outfits into their own page, and just leave a summary on the Armor page, with a link.

Thoughts? I'm pretty much just typing out what comes to mind, as it comes to mind, so they may not be good solutions, but I think there are problems that could use some solving.JakePT 17:26, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I already said 'yes', dammit! What more do you want from me? I'm cool with the N7 armor page shrinkage thing, and don't really object to Customization getting its own article, but I'm not the biggest fan of little tiny things like casual outfits getting their own separate articles. We did just delete the Casual Outfits article, after all. SpartHawg948 17:33, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand the casual outfits thing, it was just an example to show how much was on the Armor page (perhaps they could go on an eventual customisation page, should one be done). Anyway, I've moved the Armor page I did over for the mean time, and I'll put more thought into new pages later, since it's getting late here. JakePT 17:41, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Rog-O! SpartHawg948 18:38, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is just my two cents on this, I can see a page for the various armor pieces and just keeping the N7 stuff on the N7 Armor page. I am in agreement with Spart about the casual outfits part, it didn't need its own page, and still doesn't. As to the upgrades thing, personally I think that should stay on the armor page becuase it is relevent to the armor and as they apply to all the armor sets. Having an article called Armor Upgrades, or something along those lines, just doesn't sit right with me. Well there is my two cents on the subject. Lancer1289 18:49, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Voice Actor Trivia
Spart, I was just thinking out loud here, and since we have a ban on voice actor trivia for Keith David on the David Anderson page, I was thinking that we probably should just have a general ban on voice actor trivia. Thoughs? Lancer1289 18:11, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it's not a total ban. My thinking was that pointing out other games from the same developer (i.e. BioWare) should be fine. Originally I had supported also noting roles in games by the same publisher, but that seems a bit too expansive (Microsoft Game Studios and EA both being pretty big game publishers), so I'd be fine with only VA roles in other BioWare games being noted (such as Claudia Black, and the guy who voiced Han'Gerrel and Teyrn Loghain). SpartHawg948 18:20, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok then, should we make a note of that, or just enforce as we go. I think just a sentence or two in the Style Guide should be ok, but that is my opinion. Also about the publishers, yes EA and MGS are very large publishers, so I tend to agree on the Developer BioWare alone. Lancer1289 18:25, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * This one should probably be added into the Style Guide. 'Unwritten rules' are harder to enforce than those that are 'on the books' after all. SpartHawg948 18:27, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * 10-4, I'm on it. Lancer1289 18:28, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Thank You
Hi I left you message 37 Opinion. I Just wanted to say thanks for checking it out I felt it best to get another opinion, because I felt I was a little bit too aggressive and didnt phrase my response correctly, and you've pretty much confirmed that at least I know it was acceptable to answer too it wasnt sure because it was on his talk page but was clearly about me. I will never understand some people on the internet :] if he wished to say sarcastic/rude things about me he could of at least placed them on my page as it was afterall about me ah well, also sorry for the late reply I went on holiday the day I sent the message.

Ramblings about youre home page

Communist Atrocities

Saw some interesting subjects on your homepage about atrocities commited by Democracy and Communism out of curiosity did you factor in executions of Civil and military servants in the Union for so called crimes against the state (Or something along these lines) as I have a sneaky feeling they were probaly quite high, not sure if many would meet the term atrocity but being executed for simply lying in a country that made mistakes also severly punishable seems atrocious (A teacher of mine lived in the Ukraine when the Soviets were unified (dominating) it and has told us some seriously mind numbingly stupid 'crimes' people could be charged with and then executed). Funny communism is supposed to bring equality and freedom instead it always seems to be ruled by a elite even China is ruled by a few men I still cant work out how its ended up that way considering its ideals (which when I actually read up on it its actually similar to democracy and not the horrible iron fisted regimes its led too in England and Thailand their is actually nothing taught about what Communism is supposed to be all I knew was the soviets were communist therefore evil.

Man Made global warming

Also I was ready to jump on you and throw loads of 'facts' about man made global warming you're way but decided to gain these facts I rooted around for a couple of hours as any one knows entering a debate without the facts and supplementary info can be rather painful and cranium crushing and heres my arguments for man made global warming...... Co2 emissions, Ozone tear and pollution must be having an effect because scientist SAY so........ ok you were right why are the papers not mentioning the many other reasons that could cause it such as heat snaps that geological evidence shows have happended and the fact that antartica actually didnt shrink but grew (either this year or one before) and that the earth has constantly shifted in sea levels and land masses aka Pangea is going to happen again eventually, I was quite surprised how many other theories with some considerable research gone into them plus the evidence indicating that the planet isnt going to boil are all ignored. I mean the English (sorry British) goverment is sinking billions into an unproven theory that has got to be the height of stupidiy dont get me wrong we obviously need to move to clean fuels simply because oil aint going to last for ever and id rather it was put to use in industry than in cars... so yeah theirs me arguing that man made global warming is real. Amazing all Cameron and Obama need to do is run a google search to help solve the problem :}.

The Empires returning to collect the tea tax and some interesting links

Also about this 'To all my fellow Americans, Happy Independence Day!!! Let's all take a moment out of our day to yell "Take that, King George III' were only loaning you the colonies were going to be back to claim are tea tax one day :}. By the way interesting fact you may not know British kids are not taught that the British Empire existed except when they are given their history lesson on black slavery. My cousins of all ages just knew the name and associated it with what they learnt on slavery. Even in Thailand I had more knowledge of the Empire than my fellow english kids when i returned I find this generally shocking as they learn about rome and greece to civilisations that contributed greatly but so did the British and Mongol empires but their treated as a historical caveat instead of a major part of history. Picture of the Universe < never thought I would see that. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html < Isreal is often slaughtered by europe but this sight reveled that actually they are fighting for survival from all sides and that the nations against them are using the UN against themDC 18:46, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I tried to briefly respond earlier, but Wikia crashed, and then I had to go to class. Wikia is still buggy right now, with some edits not showing up, so we'll see if this works.
 * The Atrocities bit. Not sure what you mean by "executions of Civil and military servants in the Union for so called crimes against the state". If you mean U.S. citizens not in rebellion executed for treason, yes, but these numbers were quite low. At the most extreme (and estimates do vary) it was maybe a couple of hundred people. If by 'military servants' executed for 'so called crimes against the state' you mean members of the Confederate armed forces, then no, they were not counted. I didn't actually note this on my user page, but for the purposes of the paper I was writing, atrocities were classed as acts in which government forces were directly responsible for the deaths of civilians or unarmed prisoners of war. Armed Confederates on the battlefield or on warships are casualties of war, not victims of atrocities. For the Civil War, I counted those very few people who were killed without trial after being accused of treason, the very few CSA citizens killed by Union forces, and Confederate POWs who died as a result of negligence on the part of Union authorities. For the U.S. in general, I also counted American Indian civilians killed by US soldiers, those killed on the Trail of Tears and other forced relocations, Japanese civilians killed by US bombers in WWII (there were some German civilians too, but by and large the massive and wholesale targeting of German civilians was a British affair), and civilians killed in post WWII atrocities, both intentional (like My Lai) and unintentional (like the so-called Amiriyah Shelter Massacre).
 * Man-made global warming. My main point was that proponents of man-made global warming seem (in my experience) completely unwilling to even entertain the possibility that global warming (if it is even occurring at all) could be anything other than man-made. I mean, the new thing is to compare people who don't believe in man-made global warming to Holocaust deniers! I know that this is an issue where it's hard to convert people (though I myself went from believing 100% in man-made global warming to not believing in it), I'm just going with what I know and have seen, and my personal experiences and observations (I mean, being a DoD and EPA trained Environmental Inspector has to be good for something, right?), and that says that it may not be man-made, again if it's happening at all. I mean, shouldn't it have gotten warmer during the Industrial Revolution and again in WWII? It got colder both times. And what about 'Climategate'? If the science was so good, why would they need to lie, and use 'tricks' to 'hide the decline', and try to get critics of man-made global warming fired from peer-review boards of science journals? What about the fact that sea levels have been dropping around Pacific islands that the global warming crowd said would be underwater due to warming? What about the fact that many glaciers (just not the ones the media shows) are actually growing? Ditto for the ice caps? And why do the people who supposedly want to stop global warming want to go after the US and Japan, instead of the real polluters? The U.S.A has some of the cleanest industry on the planet, but suddenly we need to take the huge hit and cripple our economy? Sounds more political than scientific to me. And there are many scientists who believe the sun is a more likely culprit than man is in global warming. It is, after all, what has warmed the globe ever since there's been a globe, and it does go through periods where it gives off more heat (such as the Medieval Warm Period). Anywho, I just want people to be willing to accept alternatives. I don't think global warming is man-made, but I accept that it is a possibility. That's all I'm asking from the other side. Be at least capable of accepting that global warming may not be man made.
 * So, you're only loaning us the colonies, eh? Whatever you and Lord Cornwallis have to tell yourselves to sleep at night! I seem to recall we forced you to leave, and that Andrew Jackson made this abundantly clear in 1814. In fact, some might say that we're allowing you to stay on your islands. If we wanted to, we could always come calling to collect the debt incurred when we bailed you out of two World Wars, not to mention all the money you quite literally owed us after WWI and WWII (debts which we forgave, btw). Claiming back tea tax indeed! The money the UK borrowed from the US to fight its wars more than makes up for any back taxes. And I meant what I said about King George III. He can (it's about to get vulgar) suck my right nut. I want to make it clear, I like the British people, and I think your government is fine (I'm really glad you guys finally decided to give a real democracy a try. So what if it took you 132 years after we did it. Better late than never!), but I loath, detest, despise, abhor, etc, etc, the British monarchy, with very (and I mean very) few exceptions. If you ask me, the last good King of England was King James II. I have many reasons to despise the monarchs, mainly ethnic and religious. When an institution specifically prohibits your religion and your religion only from joining, it tends to create some animosity, you know? And that's the least of my reasons for disliking those (expletive deleted)s. But I digress. I think I've covered everything, but if I missed something, or you've got a reply, you know where to reach me! (Right below this!) :) SpartHawg948 18:41, July 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * No I ment the Soviet union not the American union sorry should of being clearer on that, thats why I mentioned the teacher from Ukraine she lived under the soviet dominance I was just curious if you included executions that the Soviet ideology and regime considered just but ethically morally and in our systems of goverments. As for the British bombing of German civilians I have to admit I feel little sympathy here or for the nuked japanese for that matter their goverments started the war and the German goverment turned London into rubble along with Stalingrad and many others once the European nations they attacked got near Germany in strength it was always going to end that way. I was actually surprised by the restraint Allied soldiers showed compared to the Red army in the east ( I done a paper on this my self theirs a huge difference particularly in regards to rape, Murder and looting). So overall I feel the Tea Tax is still due '_'. particarly as Wheres are tea tax.
 * Thats my point Ive being defending global warming and calling people denying blind stupid and some other choice expletives and then saw what you wrote decided to actually research it and found that being very kind to belivers in global warming the matters ambigous at best. I was just surprised because I truly belive that scientist of all people should have the ability to look at all the facts and evidence not a single aspect of it, doesnt make much sense that they are particulary when so much money was poored into it. It just sounds very reasonable I mean all the pollution we send up must have an effect (enter examples of human CO2 emissions) until I looked at what could be causing it alternativly. I mean the fact that the human population exploded from 2 billion to 6 Billion in 60-70 years can cause warming simply because we as individuals send up CO2. As for the US economy Britains already spending money towards it and it could be all wasted it just seems so stupid without some adaquate research..
 * Yep were going to be back consider it a long term loan if you will, you owed us that money after all if the spanish had not landed and conquered the natives and then the British French Dutch etc had not later come and colonised, stole, conquered further american lands you likely wouldnt exist as the USA today. I think bailing us out of two world wars (The first not sure why Amercia got involved so fair enough def a bail out) but the second America was almost obligated to intervene I mean Nazi Germany was not exactly the most humane nation in the world besides America could not really risk that war going on either way a German or Soviet dominated Europe seemed likely and America really did not need that either did Britain particularly if the Germans helped out the Japs in Asia that would of turned particularly nasty I imagine. I consider the World Wars America paying us back for the gifting them a continent :). Indeed if you can take are Islands feel free to try (take Wales and Northern Island first please sponging gits:S) you could of tried in 1812 instead we burnt down the white house or was it the capitol building? and you still didnt come to the isles no enemy has conquered us since William the conqueror no enemy ever WILL (ceases saber rattling), I also dont think any land invasions were very succsesful but admittidly I aint sure on this either ill kook it up. And if war between us does break out well just join the EU nothing like becoming part of a 'superpower' (im a serious anti EU individual by the way). Not sure why you would generally HATE the monarchy I mean seriously they hav'nt being in charge for many years indeed at least since Cromwell after all. The system of goverment through monarchy yeah itas a polite word for dictatorship. And when you look at it the largest empire in history was carved out supposedly for her majesty's and royal highnesses and British culture and language was spread as a result the empire also helped scientific development and the Empire was apparently ruled by the King/Queen personally i feel parliment was the true ruler once it was founded but it is just a personal opinion. I dont like the monarchy simply because when parliment was formed they were surplus to requirements if you will. If their the little reasons what are the big reasons you dislike the monarchy?.
 * Since you had your say on the Monarchy my turn I actually quite like Americas constitution it instantly protects citizens from harm provides law and order, military defense and so forth. In effect while the rest of the world was controlled quite tightly America didnt appoint a King they went Roman republic era and appointed a senate and President and ensured freedom for all  their citizens indeed you fought a civil war over slavery. Conversly now I wont go on an anti-american rant as so many seem to do on the internet but clearly the Constitution was either ignored or violated because black people were segerated from whites for a very long time in America which to my knowledge (and I could be wrong) was against the constitution i mean it may of being changed but the fact it happened is just as despicable as Britains exclusion of a religion also the banana wars invasions of other nations for US interests so their is reason to hate the American goverment too no? I mean their was even a crackdown in hollywood if someone belived in communism though though I think this wasnt goverment instigated? (please understand this is from memory so I could be wrong on some aspects,). I think its the same with any govermental system its only as good or bad as the people in it and the situation around them. For example the aforementioned Cromwell was not exactly the most saintly individual in British history but Britain certainly required him at that time. Overall you colonist's are very lucky you have your rights and freedoms ensured in an ironclad fashion and America is definitetly the land of the immigrant if people are going to work hard they can have a good high standard life and does accept a lot of different ethinicites religions and culture but those two examples I said make Amrerica look bad which aint the case with the bigger picture same with the monarchy if you look at the times they were governing and the norms of that age they adapt through the times even if that adaption came through an executioners axe :}. By the way what religion did the monarchy prohibit I actually never heard of this also is it historical or still institutional now.
 * Whats the American view on a united Europe by the way I mean the UK is your closest ally by far if they do join the EU that removes the UK from both the UN and as an individual nation and if im truthful France and Germany are going to wield the most influence in the EU nation with the way things look to be heading. I Mean France, Germany and Spain are very pacifistic (is that even a word) while Britain isnt that far behind now days then you have Italy who im not sure about. Basically with Iran trying to develop nucs Russian becoming powerful again (and having us Europeans over a barrel with natural energy) and obviously the NATO forces in Iraq and Afghanistan a blind man can see the 21st century wont likely be peaceful but the Euros are disarming and becoming more peaceful. If the EU is formed that could mean support for any other wars and/or the current ones could be weak or not given (the reason I hate the EU having a strong military isnt being barbaric its being prepared and sensible that and the obsession of the human rights act to extremes) in effect America could be almost solely responsible for stopping any further problems in the middle east or Africa while clearly capable of this it seems dangerous when both Russia & China are 'apparently' becoming stronger. I mean in Thailand we were not that bothered by it but when I came to Britain the papaers are full of soldiers being killed and the threat that Iran could potentially pose particularly to Isreal a state that I greatly admire.


 * In overlord Legion is specifically called a he by Shepard whats the policy for a single mention? Sorry for the spelling and typos being coaching for hours bit out of it.78.147.59.246 17:03, July 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, yeah, you were a bit vague. Being an American, when I hear Union, I think the Union (aka the U.S.A during the Civil War). If you're referring to the USSR, then Soviet needs to be tacked on. So yes, any executions of civilians without trial (or with just a show trial), deaths of POWs, and deaths in gulags were factored in. Even if they weren't, the Soviets still wouldn't have fared too well, what with millions dying when they created a famine in the U.K.
 * Awesome!
 * As to us not being here if not for you, your point would seem to counter itself, wouldn't it? After all, you point out the Spanish and Dutch, and both of them were here long before you Brits. If anything, isn't it them who will be back to reclaim the land you illegally seized from them? I'm sure the Dutch would love to get New Amsterdam back. As to the World Wars, yeah, we had no reason to enter WWI, so that's a straight-up bailout. As for WWII, you also have to consider that we put your needs ahead of our own in that war. Germany didn't attack us. Japan did. And Japan, quite frankly, was kicking our ass. But what did we agree to do? We agreed to help you guys take down Germany and Italy before focusing on defeating Japan. We fought a holding action in the Pacific against the Japanese, and suffered dearly for it, just so we could haul your asses out of the fire before saving our own. And what did we get in return? You guys sent one or two carriers to the Pacific (big help there!) and then gave the Soviets Nene jet engines, which they used to build MiG-15s to shoot down our pilots! Like the old saying goes, with friends like those, who needs enemies? And let's be clear. The UK did not 'gift' America the continent. Unless gift-giving works differently in the UK then it does here. We had to fight tooth and nail to get what we got from you in the Revolution. The UK didn't 'gift' us anything. Even after we liberated ourselves, the British still captured our ships and forced American citizens to serve in the Royal Navy! WTF?
 * Why do I hate the monarchy? Same reason I saw red for a few seconds when you referred to Northern Ireland as 'sponging gits'. I'm Irish. Well, Scots-Irish, about 75% Irish, 25% Lowland Scot. So yeah, no love lost there. Additionally, my family were (not to sound braggy or anything) nobility/royalty in Ireland, being descended from the King of Munster, and counting Brian Boru as one of our ancestors. The Irish were fine and dandy until those POS Brits felt the need to invade and subjugate us. It became illegal for us to practice our own religion in our own country, to really own any property (since the law mandated that if an Englishman saw something an Irishman owned that he liked, he could buy it from him for a price of his choosing), to own land, as the English took away our land and gave it to Englishmen and Loyalist Scots, to play our native sports, use our own language, they even made it illegal for us to stay in part of our own country! (I really can't stand Queen Elizabeth, since the Ulster Plantation was her thing). The British are the worst thing to ever happen to Ireland, as my family well remembers, and they haven't been a picnic for the Scots, either. I also particularly despise that butcher Cromwell, as do most Irishmen. Want to have some real fun? Go to a pub in rural Ireland (preferably somewhere in the far western areas) and praise Oliver Cromwell. Be prepared to either run for or fight for your life.
 * Why do I hate the monarchy? (PT2) I'm also Catholic. You know, that other group the British monarchs like to persecute? Like, remember that time that Queen Elizabeth decided to make being Catholic an act of treason, punishable by death? And then started rounding up and executing Catholic priests and monks? I do! All because we accept a guy in Rome as head of the church instead of some guy (or gal) in London. And, if you go even deeper, it's really all because we wouldn't let a fat, pompous, murderous ass who couldn't accept that it was his fault he couldn't produce a son get a divorce. So what did Henry VIII do? That loser decided, 'Hey! I should make my own church! With me at the top!' And since many Catholics didn't buy it, apparently we had to die. That's why I said James II was the last good British monarch. He's the last one who actually went out of his way to try and help Catholics and the Irish. He was Catholic, and his efforts to help the Irish were rewarded when they fought for him against that filthy usurper, William of Orange. Just goes to show that the carrot does work better than the stick, eh? Be noce to the Irish, we'll be nice to you. Enslave and subjugate us in our own country, and we'll do everything we can to hurt you. Everything that's been done to help the Irish and Catholics post-King James II has been done by the House of Commons, often with the strenuous objection of the monarch and the nobility. This is why I said I detest the monarch, but like your government ok. It gets the job done.
 * There is no real American view on a united Europe. My view? Whatever. Let'em unite. Although it'd be better for the UK to not be involved. The EU is bad business for you guys. If anything, you guys should join us, become the 51-54 states. We'd be happy to have you, and unlike when you guys ruled us, we'll even let you have a say in how you're governed! :P SpartHawg948 17:31, July 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Even if they weren't, the Soviets still wouldn't have fared too well, what with millions dying when they created a famine in the U.K.' forgive my ignorance if im wrong but you meant the Ukraine right?
 * Yes but long term the UK and US would not want a dominated Europe by either Germany or the Soviets particularly as the Germans were alligned with Japan as for the east asian theatre we fought their two and im not sure more troops would of solved the problem I mean did America have the capacity to supply the amount of troops sent to the pacific let alone transport them? and besides Germany declared war on you surely you couldnt leave that go unanswered?. As for us allowing the Soviets miltary equipment Afghan rebels (we gave equipment to them too) Iraq (US gave them equipment when they fought Iran) were always giving equipment to the wrong people. And freinds like these comments *coughs* Falklands *Coughs* Suez *coughs again* US citizens funding IRA terrorism we know what you mean :S. And if the Dutch and Spanish wish their land back were simply join the EU and call the tea tax in collectivly see European co-operation/reasoning at its best :}. Though if BP doesnt plug that bloody hole up soon the former colonies are going to be covered in oil (this aint a dig I mean this seriously they need to sort it)
 * Im English/Irish on my dads side and Thai/Ghanan/Polish on my mums side and im also Catholic well im baptised as one honestly im not very religous though so I tend to to get ripped to pieces a lot here it was a british Isles dig realy by the way I said Northern Ireland not the republic all the nationalities take digs at each other us English get slaughtered more than most so I have a rather thick skin on this subject, its the done thing for example when you meet naval aviation surely theirs some ribbing and banter between you both. And belive me my father never shuts up singing IRA songs or singing the praises of PIRA which annoys me to hell so I can be a little insensive about this because I see it in a light hearted way it doesnt make whats happening their any less bad but isnt much choice for me. But my dad has spoken about British troops in Ireland and if im being serious just like the actions in Iraq now it sounds like it was messy and horrible. As for Cromwell the Irish didnt need him the Scots didnt the Monarchy didnt but the English needed him, I mean Scotland eventually joined England in the EU. As for being nice to the Irish and they return the favour I have tried reasoning with my pure Irish family members IT CANT BE DONE I TELL YOU their far to stubborn by the way try southern ireland for strong few on England:}. Personally I think although Henry carried out his actions for selfish reasons it wasnt actually that huge a difference between them a doctrinal change really but he should of looked at Sunny and Shia Islam minor (From my perspective) difference in their views has led to serious religous disputes it was only going to lead one way he should of predicted tha, he could of at least took constantines approach and introduced it slowly you managed to choose one of two individuals I dislike in the monarchy Henry VIII the other being Anne. Im pro parliment by the way thats why I said Monarchy as a goverment is basically a dictatorship all prettied up but my reasoning is that overall their influence had a good effect on the British Isles and the world but as I also stated i think a lot of what is considered done by the Monarchy is parliments doing i.e the empire was realy ruled by parliment WW2 was fought by parliment where as the Monarchy invaded Ireland and the Monarchy stopped the Armada. Overall I think the Monarchy was nessesary. Thats also why i brought up the Black seperation and the bannana was their unsavoury as is Americas driving back of the Native americans ( I imagine they have fews not far of your views on the monarchys actions in Ireland) No one can say what was done in either case was right but overall when considering the contributions The UK and US made its the individuals and times that shaped the instituions in your case disliking individuals of the monarchy is fair enough as for example i dislike Jefferson Davis because he was willing to lead a pro slave nation. I mean in todays times if the UK monarchy attempted to order a invasion of Ireland or the execution of traitors their would be uproar conversly if the US tried to invade Mexcio and re-locate them onto reservations their would be similar uproar (used mexico as im not sure weather the reservations are sovereign or not). But overall im sorry i dont care what anyone on earth says Britain and America and Spain IMO have had an huge impact on how the modern world is today because lets face it it could be worse, I mean the Thai goverment is not hugely different from yours thats why i feel i can speak with some perspective on why you amercians are so protective of the constitution I would die to see a man rights in Thailand up held because its our right.in Britain the goverment uses PC ideas to limit speech you cant put up English, UK flags oh or celebrate Christmas by oh you know putting out decorations in case you OFFEND anyones religous senseibilities its so bad the BP Party have had their membership and support increase, Where as in Thailand our rights were upheld here resentment is building up towards islam and immigrants because the goverment is infringing white/black christians rights while being very soft on immigrants and Islamic EXTREMISTS its crazy funny isnt it that Thailand is more democratic to its citizens than the UK. PS Obama seems to be trying to gain control over to much of your electronic communications you guys should keep an eye on him. Red cross bans christmas Harman Bill 5 yr olds bare shoulders offend muslimsExtremist insult homecoming troops in public extremist living in Uk mocks families http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-358382/Deportation-fair-says-extremist-benefits.html This is just stuff i typed in theirs much more i seriously couldnt belive Britain allowed this when we got here.
 * Do you have any idea how (sorry expletive is needed here) apeshit both Europe and Russia would go if the US had territory that close to them in Europa? Im surprised you dont want the UK in the EU but apparently and im gonna google search to find out where the papers got it but the US administration dont want us in the EU or even a united EU because of the NATO alliance i think though iI would of thought after fighting to WW's here having to garrison it against the Soviets that the US Administration would want a united Europe.
 * You are correct sir! I got mixed up and typed U.K. instead of Ukraine. To the best of my knowledge, the USSR never caused a famine in the U.K.
 * Yes, America did have the capacity to support more troops in the Pacific, especially once Germany fell. Remember that the entire time we were in the war, we were fighting three to four separate wars, as well as supplying both the British and the Soviet war efforts. And a German-occupied Europe was much less of a threat to us than Japan, which was actively beating the crap out of us. Despite this, we agreed to help the U.K. win its war first before taking care of our own. And a German declaration of war on the U.S. is far less of a pressing matter than the Japanese sinking our ships and taking our territory. We dropped our war to fight yours, and when we finally helped you beat Germany, the U.K. did jack crap to help against Japan. The USSR did more. And then the U.K. gave the USSR the tools they needed to kill a lot more Americans in Korea. As for your rebuttal to my 'friends like these' comment, we were not involved at all in the Falklands. Actually, I was in error. The U.S. was involved. We refused to sell weapons to Argentina and provided material support to British military operations. And, both the House of Representatives and the Senate passed resolutions supporting the British action. And all this, btw, was in direct violation of nearly two hundred years of U.S. Foreign Policy. Critics of President Reagan were furious with him for not honoring the Monroe Doctrine and helping Argentina. So I'm not sure how that compares, as in the Falklands we actually HELPED YOU in a war we had no interest in (and the U.S. law and foreign policy demanded we actually fight you over). As for the Suez crisis, again, we took no part in that. All we did was pressure the U.K., France, and Israel to cease their illegal invasion of Egypt. We didn't ask the U.K to bail us out, then decline to return the favor, nor did we supply military technology to a country that then turned around and used them on us. Hardly comparable. And American citizens providing support to the IRA also does not compare. That is the action of individuals, not the U.S. government (a government, btw, that has attempted to cut off American citizens support to the IRA, but you failed to mention that). But I do agree. British Petroleum needs to get its act together and stop the leak.
 * I know you said Northern Ireland and not the Republic. It still angered me, because any time a British citizen complains about Northern Ireland, all I can think is that the U.K. has no damn business being in Ireland, PERIOD. If you don't like it, get out! End the illegal occupation! And yes, being nice to the Irish and having them return the favor DOES work. I gave an example. King James II was great to the Irish (as opposed to most English monarchs) and then when push came to shove, the Irish flocked to him, willing to give their lives to help him out. And look at how well the Republic of Ireland gets along with all the countries that HAVEN'T invaded them and slaughtered their people! The only country they have any issues with is the U.K. As for Cromwell, sure England may have needed him, but why did he have to then come to Ireland and slaughter and enslave Irish civilians? Cromwell was a monster and a butcher, and needs to be recognized as such. He's right up there with Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. As for whether Henry VIIIs changes were major, ask Sir Thomas More if the changes were minor doctrinal changes. It might be hard to elicit an answer, as he was executed for refusing to acknowledge Henry as the head of the Church. Finally, you point out that in the U.K, tolerance is the big thing, and you can't offend anyone. Well, someone tell the British government that. It is still, last I checked, illegal for a Catholic to become King or Queen. I guess no one told the British government that if you want to not offend anyone, you need to stop religious discrimination by the government. SpartHawg948 23:10, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

I was writing out a response but when I went to save it wouldnt because of the edit so I copy and pasted what I wrote but when its pasted its the infos condensed to the right side of the page making it much longer and I have a feeling it will mess the page up how do I correct that or what have I done wrong without having to write the whole think out again:(78.147.59.246 01:00, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's odd... I'm really not sure what would cause that. If it was fine the first time it should be fine the next as well. I'm not quite sure what is meant by condensed to the right side of the page... all I can suggest is to check the indents, make sure some more of those didn't get added in there somehow. SpartHawg948 01:03, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * The US considered supporting the Argentines and more to the point was not exactly very enthusiastic in supporting the brits for a while in what was an invasion of British sovereign territory inhabited by pro-British inhabitants I mean that’s quite surprising from an ally however once again in fairness public opinion was apparently splitif a people want to be governed by the UK the Argentines don’t really have the right to rescind it for example we didn’t have the right to tell the Indians how to be governed. Interestingly when oil was found their recently the argies wanted it back (By the way of all the wars after WW2 the Falkland’s scares me the most because a essentially poor nation with a mixed army was able to do considerable damage with their air force alone). The Suez crisis that was what I meant Eisenhower threatened the release of the pound reserves which would of devastated the British economy though I will be fair I think his anger was more that he wasn’t informed of an operation in a very sensitive area. As for the IRA thing that’s what I’m on about I know the government didn’t (I didn’t know they tried to cut NORAID like I said I’m going from memory and what my father's told me) its just the IRA eventually became a terrorist organization and children were killed in them bombings when you consider that the US and NATO are fighting terrorist now it doesn’t make sense why America citizens would support them. The IRA used American funds weather they came from government or citizens to kill British civilians don’t get me wrong the death of soldiers is one thing civilians is another matter in the same way I would fully believe any British soldiers committing atrocities or unlawful killings should be prosecuted, as a soldier can you really say you would deliberately kill a civilian I've met enough soldiers to know the majority have enough integrity not too. As for the British 'occupation' it’s being significantly toned down and Northern Ireland is British its part of the UK therefore were not occupying it is British soil and Northern Ireland protestants there deserve as much protection as its Catholics. Also Northern Ireland is a sovereign nation why should we allow it to be absorbed simply because people don’t think it should be their such as the IRA or others want a united Ireland if the Northern Irish don’t want unification then tough titties children in the modern world Sovereignty rules. Indeed moving out during the IRA attacks would have led to the massacre and/or prosecution of irish protestants. I mean look at the Enniskillen bombing it was barbaric my point is American citizens actually supported those murdering scum and believe me I've argued with my own family on this many who were in Ireland and my family who lived in England during all the bombings I mean Hammersmith bridge which is only 15 mins from me my mum went over that bridge 10 minutes before it was bombed thats only ten years ago my mum could of being killed their even though she’s half Irish has an Irish husband is catholic and wanted the Brits out of Ireland how is that right? Particularly after the fact Northern Ireland is British their isn’t any British troops in the republic and there never will be. Spart I'm starting to think maybe you haven’t fully researched or a into this one because your view seems a little dated even for Irish men:} I mean Ireland isn’t occupied and surely you agree we have to defend a democratic sovereign nations right of existence I mean if Pakistan can exist why not Northern Ireland. When I said the Irish are too stubborn this subject is seriously a family matter for me and my Irish family will not budged on the subject and that’s what I meant by the Irish are too stubborn I was both talking in jest and mentioning my own experience. I mean native Americans can if they wish claim that the USA is occupying their land but if they were to bomb you we would be outraged (well I hope Britain would, we were after 9/11). As for Korea we fought their too so we armed a nation that eventually we fought the same for Iraq and Afghanistan the UK and US armed both the Iraqi's under Sadam and the Afghanistan Muj during the Soviet occupation were once again fighting people we helped arm and train again just as we did in Korea so it is comparable because were once again fighting people we armed and trained who are once again killing our troops. For example British SAS taught the Muj how to build IEDs that were designed by the IRA that is both messed up and ironic, and the US supplied weapons particularly stingers. And if any have a stinger left over and use it one day a lot of people could pay the price for example you're in the airforce (you are a pilot right?) if you were to be shot down by a American stinger or a brit trained muj's IED its just as tragic but you're/Brit government did not know it was going to have to fight them one day. As for negative relations with Irelands them days stopped long ago were hardly best friends but remember its a 90 minute ferry to Ireland we cant exactly hate each other theirs many Irish people here and vice versa the problem you speak of our finished theirs die hards such as the real Ira who are basically drug dealing terrorists without any real chance of making Northern Ireland part of the Republic.


 * Then why did you not simply concentrate on Asia? our navy was too powerful for a German amphibious invasion, we DID need your navies assistance the U-Boats were strangling us the same way we needed the supplies coming from across the Atlantic but the actual troops could of being held off couldn’t they? Actually good question why did you send an invasion force because if the Germans had conquered the Soviet Union D-Day would of being slightly suicidal I think, unless the invasion of North Africa and Italy was supposed to both stretch Germany and release more British Troops. How were we supposed to support your land war in Asia when our troops were tied down in India, Burma, Indonesia and the pacific islands our navy did support you as did the Dutch navy to some extent but what exactly could we support you with on land? we were also fighting around the globe even with empire forces we were stretched in Africa, Asia, Europe, the middle east needed to be garrisoned the actual African continent needed to be garrisoned, we couldn’t lose Suez either we were quite literally deployed everywhere we were holding and fighting for a large amount of territory with less resources and troops than America or Germany or Japan plus we had fought for 3 years prior to this had endured a bombing campaign, submarine attacks on merchants, war in Belgium, France, Middle East, Africa and Asia I can’t see exactly how we could of helped you where as the Soviet Union was able to move large amounts of troops east once its western flank was more secured plus the slight fact their armed forces had a land border to fight the japs from plus a gigantic army/population/industry. A German dominated Europe left America single handedly fighting Japan they also would of had more troops to throw at you if the British empire and the Commonwealth was out of the picture not to mention the other Euro powers also if the Germans had Europe secured what would stop them and Italy from sending troops to Asia? and perhaps even cutting of the middle east oil to the USA which incidentally could also have left more oil for Japan (presuming that oil was pumped from their back then)? The USA did not need the Germans securing Europe, as for the Soviets long term if they secured Europe well the cold war would clearly of being a little different i guess without a Europe too defend the US might of actually avoided the Cold war who knows.
 * Like I said it’s kind of the done thing over here it’s not rampant but common enough. I didn’t point out in the UK tolerance is the big thing all the links were supposed to show how Christian rights to show their religious beliefs our being suppressed, That is not real tolerance is it come on a party similar to the Nazi party actually gaining support in Britain is ludicrous. I'm offended that I’m I was told to remove the word Christmas from my window that’s what the point was I’m furious that Islam is given so much favour over so many religions I mean if you haven’t read the links I gave. I mean you cant say anything slightly offensive and not have the possibility of lawful intervention free speech is kind of non existence. My point with Henry is that realy NO blood needed to be shed over that it’s a religious schism and one that it isn’t worth hating people over Constantine turned a pagan Roman empire towards Christianity by being clever and subtle Henry just charged in like a spoilt brat I didnt defend his actions in fact I said he should and could of done it differently like I said I don’t like Henry not so much for his changing of the church but he murdered his wives and friends at to my knowledge did nothing to improve Britain accept gurantee hostility from the Christian Europe I mean Orthodox Christianity existed in Russia he was well within his rights to change a religous doctrine IF he had had Papa and plebian support he didn’t and he didn’t need that support to change it which is one of the reasons Monarchy is really a pretty dictatorship I guess.
 * You seem a little annoyed at some of the points I've made particularly the Irish sponging and about the 'freinds like these now' the Irish I'm surrounded by it and I think you misunderstand the social and political picture today as the sponging comment was a joke far from a complaint they are part of my country believe me they say considerably worst against us the scots in particular are very creative for example I’m sure you have heard welsh people shag sheep that English people just drink tea and scones and have bad teeth and that Scottish people are always fat drunk or fighting while Irish people drink Guinness and have leprechauns and love to fight it’s just a joke nothing serious behind it when you’re nations our joined like ours jokes about each other thrived. The friends like these comments I thought you meant it in a light hearted manner? The same was true of my response it wasn’t a rebuttal far from it. If I've read you’re 'annoyance' wrong then my bad but if I have I haven’t meant to offend your views if I have. It was just interesting to discuss this stuff and have a bit of a laugh about the overdue tea tax :}. I work virtually all the time and when I go out its mainly clubbing I miss some of serious disscussion's I had in college (There’s only so many times I can hear about peoples life’s> I say while mentioning mine the irony) which is why I asked about the atrocity paper in the first place it interested me discussions like this useally lead me to learning something new.
 * Yep you were right dashes and indents were to the left wouldnt allow the info to display thanks. Basically all the righting above was condensed into like three word long sentences instead of running across the page. I didnt realise the US supported the action i knew that a lot of nations banned arms at the UN did not know if US was one of them new Europe did however clearly you have looked it up and if it was against standard procedures than clearly im incorrect on the matter as a democratic nation cleary its your countries right to discuss a situation my bad my info came from a book called 'The Falklands War 25th anniversery' clearly some of the info in it might be wrong or I've remembered wrongly either way clearly America made a major decision and now I see why you would not just make the decsion quickly. ( :} see I learnt something new)


 * The U.S. never considered supporting Argentina. Produce evidence that they did, and I'll look at it, but the fact remains, as soon as Argentina invaded the Falklands, the U.S. announced it would not supply any weapons to the Argentines, and then (despite the fact that the Monroe Doctrine called for us to help Argentina) we actually helped the U.K. So no, the U.S. didn't consider supporting Argentina. And once again, the U.S. in the Suez crisis was responding to an ILLEGAL INVASION OF A SOVEREIGN NATION by the U.K., France, and Israel, and an invasion that, had it gone on, would have seriously destabilized the region and allowed the Soviets to gain even greater influence in the region. And again, U.S. citizens supporting the IRA is in no way comparable to decisions made by the British government. You say you can't see why U.S. civilians would want to support the IRA. I can speak from personal experience. It's because there is a large Irish-American population in the USA, and they (like pretty much all Irish) are infuriated that the British are still in Ireland. It was an illegal invasion and occupation, followed by the Ulster Plantation (an act which, if it occurred today would be considered a crime against humanity under the ICC- 'Deportation or forcible transfer of population), followed by a long and bloody occupation. We do still resent that, you know. And you point to the Enniskillen bombing, where the Provos killed 11 civilians... 2 less than British troops killed in cold blood on Bloody Sunday. Kind of hard to tell who is the 'murdering scum' here, isn't it? After all, all the innocent civilians killed by the IRA and Provos still don't come anywhere near approaching the number of innocent Irish civilians killed by the British military. You ask why Pakistan can exist but not Northern Ireland. Here's why. The Pakistanis are native to that region. The Protestant English- and Scotsmen aren't native to Ulster. The Catholic Irish who were forced out of their homes in the aforementioned Ulster Plantation were native to Northern Ireland. That's why it's an illegal occupation. Again, were it to happen today, legally it would be a crime against humanity. I'm starting to think it's you who haven't researched if you don't know these basic facts.
 * I don't know why we didn't just concentrate on Asia. If we'd been looking out for our own interests, we would have. Instead, we went to Europe first, and hauled you guys and the Soviets out of the fire. Fortunately, it turned out that we were capable of fighting both Germany and Japan while at the same time supplying both the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union, or else the world would be royally screwed right now, wouldn't it?
 * I understand that no offense was meant, but as an Irish-American who fully supports the cause of Irish Republicanism, hearing a British citizen call Northern Ireland 'sponging gits' infuriates me. Britain shouldn't even be there! The people should have been left alone, to develop as they saw fit. Instead, Queen Elizabeth decided that the best way to make Ireland compliant was to force all the Irish out and replace them with more loyal subjects. Fortunately, she was only able to do it to Ulster. I just don't like British people complaining about Northern Ireland. Don't like it? Leave! Please! I'll gladly give up all my wordly possessions and money to the British government if they'll just leave. I'll spend the rest of my days singing the praises of the benevolent British if they will just get out of Ireland. This thread is getting really long and contentious, so I'd like to wrap this up. Just please, check your facts and don;t accuse me of not knowing mine, as I can assure you, I know my Irish history. I have written several papers on it that were very well received, so yes, I do know what I'm talking about. SpartHawg948 01:47, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, no, I'm not a pilot. Pilots only make up about 10% of the Air Force. The most annoying thing about being in the Air Force is that everyone assumes you're a pilot. You have no idea how old that gets. What do you do? "I'm in the Air Force." Really? What plane do you fly? ...(frustrated silence) Or- So I heard you're in the Air Force. That means you're a pilot, right? "Um, no. Do you have any idea what it actually takes to put a plane in the air, or how many office personnel are needed to support them?" Well, no. "Figures." In fact, my user page pretty much says I'm not a pilot. In the U.S. Air Force, only officers are pilots. I'm a Staff Sergeant, which is an enlisted rank. I'm not an officer, therefor it's guaranteed that I'm not a pilot. Sorry if this response seems overly cross or rude, but you have no idea how annoying it is to have people constantly assume you're a pilot. SpartHawg948 02:00, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

As for Suez fair enough but like I've already said youre first comment was light hearted mine was intended the same way thats why I put the *cough* it wasnt supposed to be serious I didnt say anything about the Suez situation you used the Mig example so I just gave some examples of America but once again I didnt go into detail simply because I did not think you ment the freinds like that phrase seriously I found it slightly funny you also didnt answer to my Iraq and Afghanistan reference because we did arm them.
 * Militarily it would of made more sense but I guess its lucky for the UK, France UU and maybe the Soviets the US chose not too.
 * I didnt accuse you I said I think or that you didnt understand the social political sitiuation OR hadnt researched I didnt presume. I live in Britain I have a mainly British/English/Irish family here my father dislikes England and loves the IRA. He was in Ireland from 1950 until 1989 he knows what hes talking about. The IRA could of killed my mother I have being to Ireland both the republic and north many times and I know and have researched the history Imm talking from personal expireience and from expierience from people that were their the last 50 years the resentment you talk of aint their it is not a major issue anymore my own family was their my freinds were their I live here so who still resents it irish-americans? why with all due respect its for the Irish (both north and south to work out), catholics? who still feels resentment its a healed wound ex IRA such as Gerry Adams actually took part in the peace as did Bill Clinton no one wants Ireland to escalate into a long war again were peaceful and thats all that matters, I stick fully by my opinion that your opinion is either out of touch or dated as to the situation today. As for bloody sunday firstly dont put lives in terms of numbers please murder is murder secondly I fully agree those responsible those who ordered or carried out the killings should be punished but how does the presence of one atrocity lessen the other how can the IRA not be murdering scum after killing and wounding Civilians who were not, its not hard to work out the murdering scum at all both were as bad as the other, I feel you have tried to point score here and am actually shocked if you really dont belive the IRA who carried it out are murderers but I personally think both were disgusting like I said bombing/shooting soldiers/IRA ok it was a war civilians is a no no, I cant belive people will support murder if I can speak about both in the same light I cant see why you cant saying either was right is just morally wrong but I dont see why innocent Northern Irish should suffer. The plantation was horrible but the resentment isnt their I did not mean you did not understand the historical picture I did not write that if you look at the sentence theirs a or theirs supposed to be political or social situation at the moment their it hasnt pasted in. And as for the plantation some of the areas such as western parts and areas south of Northern Ireland had this happen and did not become part of NI such as Donegal. The plantation was 400 years or more ago the US drove the natives of their lands much more recently why not let them have their lands back?. And explain how I cant like Northern Ireland im Irish more importantly of Irish Catholic desent by 1 generation youve taken a joke I've made and taken it too serious, im particarly annoyed your using historical info when I didnt the IRA and NI was my main point I also didnt deny that what had being done in Ireland was wrong I agree fully. But the thought of Northern Ireland not being sovereign even though the people who are not native have being their for nearly 400-500 years thats crazy for one how can you now work out whos native and not religion? converts, inter marriage its not possible the US was built by non-natives but I wouldnt seriously suggest/want/think you should give native americans their land back you were hard on them but still the US is what over 200 years old are you all going to come back to Europe, Africa, Asia and South America? Should the Northern Irish citizens come back to the UK then because of the crimes of people 400 years ago. I mean I put wales and Ireland sponging gits and a smily face Im sorry but Im not a British citizen nor was I raised in Britain Im a thai citizen and lived there till I was 10 and moved to the UK when I was 14 and came to England again this year im hardly a British Citizen and why should I not take the mick out of the country im living (UK) and my own nationality (Irish/English/Thai/Ghanan/Polish). And as for native to the region once again native americans they were as the name says native to America but they had their lands taken and were placed on reservations. Pakistan their nation was created for religous reasons and from Indian territory I belive which is why i used it only other religousy created country i could recall. Enniskillen I used because THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND'S citizens were disgusted even the Soviet Union declared it barbaric I truly cant believe you're reaction to my reference to this im shocked it would belike someone trivilising bombings of Germany,Isreal,Spain,US or any other nation who has had terrorist attack them but say oh thats ok look what you did the Germans caused WW2 if 1 german was shot by neo-nazis or a Polish jew tomorrow I would be disgusted at the murder.
 * You are a pilot right ? < I asked you because yes I know theirs way more personel than pilots I just thought that you were a pilot look how much I had written I couldnt check. I also didnt know that you had too be an officer to fly. My only military expireience is basic training and a few weeks of exercises in Thailand. But I understand it must be frustrating people not understanding that their simply isnt thousounds of planes for everyone to fly math alone says that. On the plus women are ment to like Pilots. Ok this convo has gone far from what I intended so I agree with you lets end it up its just going to go on because we both clearly have strong and passionate opinions on Ireland and its pointless starting an argument on it because my opinion wont change and either will yours which I think is fair enough.


 * Yeah, I'll take the word of the U.S. State Department over some book any day, even with Hillary Clinton at the helm. She's actually not doing as bad as I expected/
 * Now you say "I didnt accuse you I said I think or that you didnt understand the social political sitiuation OR hadnt researched". Well, let's rewind a bit, shall we? "Spart I'm starting to think maybe you haven’t fully researched or a into this one because your view seems a little dated even for Irish men". I'll let the quotes speak for themselves.
 * Did I ever say it wasn't wrong for the IRA to kill civilians? No. And the idea that you would accuse me of being so heartless is, quite frankly, disgusting. You do have to realize though, that the U.K. backed them into a corner. Violence was literally the only way that the Irish were able to get the British out of the lower 26 (aka the Republic of Ireland), and once you've forced people to resort to terrorism to drive out a foreign occupation, you can't expect them to just quit at the drop of a hat. It takes time, as we've seen. First the IRA disarmed, then the Provos disarmed, and now all that are left are a couple of idiotic splinter groups. The British drove them to this, though, make no mistake. After all, the IRA was formed back when Britain still occupied ALL of Ireland, and it was formed for the sole purpose of driving them out of ALL of Ireland. I never said the IRA weren't murderers, just that you have to look at why they're doing what they do. And, to use some admittedly childish terms, the British started this.
 * Also, if I could ask a quick favor- you may not know this in Europe (many Americans don't even know), but the term Native American is no longer considered appropriate. Most American Indian groups prefer to be referred to as American Indians. The reason for this is, of course, that there are no 'native' Americans. The American Indians immigrated here the same as everyone else. As for the American Indians, I fully support giving them back their ancestral lands. However, unlike the Irish, the American Indians aren't pushing to get their land back. Instead, they get other forms of preferential treatment (such as the right to open Indian gaming casinos, which make INSANE amounts of money for the tribes that have them). I'm not saying that Northern Ireland needs to be hung out to dry, just that it be given back to the Irish. So, thanks for accusing me of not knowing the situation, and of being sympathetic to terrorism. This truly is something that neither of us will convert the other on, and frankly, after some of what you said in your last post I wish to have no further contact with you. Accusing me of trying to "point score"! That was sick and uncalled for. Good day, sir. SpartHawg948 04:05, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

I know you wanted know contact but please read this one paragraph. You have my unreserved apology for accusing you of supporting murder but 'And you point to the Enniskillen bombing, where the Provos killed 11 civilians... 2 less than British troops killed in cold blood on Bloody Sunday. Kind of hard to tell who is the 'murdering scum' here, isn't it? ' when I read that I was actually shocked I cant see how else I could of interpreted it thats why I said the point scoring it was a more palatable alternative to beliving you belived Enniskillen wasnt monstrous. I apoligise for questioning your integrity but I was actually physically shaking and felt sick when I read it and I did belive what I wrote was right at the time I would be lying if I said I didnt before that we had differences of opinion but that stunned me. I was utterly shocked and dumbfounded Im actually glad at the response you gave this generally got to me and I can say im glad I was wrong. But I fully apologise to you and withdraw my earlier comments for what its worth it doesnt make my actions better but I am truly sorry and wish it hadnt got out of hand.78.147.58.122 12:10, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was simply pointing out that for every IRA bombing in which civilians are killed, there can be found an equally bad (or worse) incident in which British government forces (who, unlike the IRA, are trained and bound by law to protect civilians) massacre innocent civilians. You seemed to be coming at this from the sole perspective of 'the IRA are the bad guys, they're the problem in Northern Ireland', and this is an incredibly myopic perspective to take. Terrorist actions are horrible. Civilians being massacred by government forces, though, is worse, because the government is there to protect the civilians! I'm not just saying this about the British, either. I feel the exact same way about Lt. Calley and those responsible for the My Lai massacre as I do about the animals who opened fire on unarmed demonstrators on Bloody Sunday. All of them need to be shot. There is NO EXCUSE for soldiers to open fire on unarmed civilians who are not in any way endangering the soldiers. All I was trying to do by pointing to Bloody Sunday is get you to remember that this is not a one-sided issue. There are murderers on both sides, and the British government is far from guiltless. Just a closing thought here too. Before you go assigning blame to one side or another, look at the issue of responsibility, and owning up for actions. It took Sinn Fein (the political voice of the IRA) ten years to formally apologize for murdering civilians in Enniskillen. It took the British government thirty-eight years to even accept responsibility for the massacre on Bloody Sunday. No one group is guilty or innocent, which is all I was trying to point out, and which you used to paint me as a monster. Again, I say to you, Good Day, sir. SpartHawg948 20:14, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Shepard in romance sections.
I would argue that even a default Shepard would be against the MOS in a romance section. Quoted below: "Though there is a representative / default Shepard used in promotional art, on MEWiki this version of Shepard is not considered canon to the exclusion of all others, particularly as Shepard can be either male or female and of any ethnicity. As creating an individual character who is shaped by decisions is an integral part of Mass Effect, and all characters are unique, not depicting Shepard keeps MEWiki universal for all Mass Effect players, and gives credence to their decisions and character customisation." This seems to indicate that even the default female shepard would violate this, as you can tell by her face that she's white, has red hair, etc. I argued the opposite way on the Tali article because there were absolutely no distinguishing features of the Commander visible in the screenshot. Here, having the face be visible would most certainly violate the MOS (At least in my interpretation) Thoughts? Dammej 05:23, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * However, I would counter by pointing out that the 'Shepard and gender' section states:

"The exception is when discussing romances, as this is the only area where gender makes any real difference"
 * It could be made a bit clearer, I do agree, but the precedent for allowing extremely limited gender-specific depictions of Shepard when discussing romance does exist. SpartHawg948 05:34, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, I am still weary about it, but if a rewording is in order, how about:

"The exception is when discussing romances, as this is the only area where gender makes any real difference. Images of Shepard in a romance picture are allowed, but only the default male and female Shepard."
 * A seperate note on the pictures should be warrented as well along simiilar lines. Lancer1289 05:38, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me. I mean, the policy clearly isn't NO Shepard images. Just look at the Commander Shepard page, and the armor pages and such. It's just that Shepard images are strictly regulated. So yeah, the above rewording looks fine to me. SpartHawg948 05:39, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I quoted more of it above. I'm with you 100% that in this case, it is allowable to have a screenshot which contains a female shepard, but it would still violate the other reason for there not being allowed pictures of Shepard: You can tell that she's white, or has red hair, or whatever. These, in addition to the gender, are customizable by the player, so showing them in a screenshot would violate the "give credence to their decisions and character customisation" portion of the rule. If there were a shot that showed only the body of a female shepard in front of Jacob, then I'd have no problems whatsoever. But in this case, showing the face, which is another portion of the character that can be customized, is still a violation. (In my opinion)
 * But I guess all of this is moot since you've already reworded the exception to defeat my argument. Dammej 05:44, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha! Take that! I understand that it does somewhat violate the standard that BioWare set for customization of Shepard, but they themselves violate that standard every time they produce a TV commercial, magazine or internet ad, or game cover with the default male Shepard on it. In the face of that argument (which has been made a few times), it's kind of hard to hold up their statement regarding customization as an iron-clad justification for no Shep images. SpartHawg948 05:48, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok then if there are no further arguments, and BioWare kind of violates their own rule on that, I'll take a crack at modding the style guide and the phrase strictly regulated comes to mind. However After thinking, and getting edit conflicted twice, I think that just the image section requires modification, rather than the Shepard and Gender section because that deals more with general while the images section is specific to this issue. Lancer1289 05:51, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting no pictures of the commander be visible. Like you said, it's unavoidable with things like the Armor section. If you crop out the commander, you crop out the subject of the image (the armor). But with most romance scenes, it's possible to get a relevent screenshot and still not show the distinguishing features of the Commander (see: Tali). I think if we can avoid showing the commander in as many situations as possible, we'll be better off. Dammej 05:53, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, after looking though the style guide, modding the Canon section is better as it deals with screenshots. I was thinking something like: "However, images of Shepard are allowed under certain circumstances and those images are strictly regulated. Specific sections are the various Armor pages and Romance sections of the various character articles. However if an image must be put in, it must be of the default male or female Shepard, and care should be taken to avoid as many distinguishing features, like hair and facial features. If you have a question about whether a Shepard picture is ok or not, then don't add it and ask an admin if it is ok or not." Opinions? Lancer1289 05:58, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Works for me. And I get that you (Dammej) aren't arguing against all images of Shepard, but again the current canon policy does allow for some overriding of the individual's own preferences, such as mandating that when, for example, talking about a romance between Shepard and Jacob, Shep can be referred to as 'she', 'her', etc. That's all I'm getting at, is that current policy already allows for some overruling of the customization principle. SpartHawg948 00:39, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok then, I'll just take that quote and add a link or two. Lancer1289 06:04, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, and I just added a link to the Administrators page and added "as possible" in a place where I forgot it. Opinions on this. Lancer1289 06:10, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that. And as long as the rule in the MOS explains that -as little of the commander be visible as possible-, like the one that Lancer has, I'm ok with that. I've just done a copy-edit of it below:

"However, images of Shepard are allowed under certain specific circumstances and those images are strictly regulated. The specific sections are only: the various Armor pages and the Romance sections of the various character articles. Further, any image added to these sections must be of the default male or female Shepard, and care should be taken to avoid showing as many distinguishing features as possible, like hair and facial features. If there is any question as to whether an image is acceptable, ask an admin before you add it to the article."
 * That's what I got. Dammej 00:51, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed, that was more percise and cleaner than what I had. So that is now what is in. Lancer1289 06:23, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * So, just throwing this out there... I notice the speculation section was removed from the Community Guidelines. Did you ok that Lancer? B/c I do not agree with deleting that info at all. Speculation is a big enough issue that it needs to be covered twice. And the Community Guidelines do seem an appropriate place for the info, as it does cover acceptable practices, much like the banning and language policies. SpartHawg948 06:42, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed it, as it was all the same. But if you think it should be there twice I'll undo it. Dammej 06:44, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Already did it. Admins prerogative, and all that. Generally, before whole swathes are removed from the CGs, some discussion (or at the very least approval of one or more admins) is nice. SpartHawg948 06:45, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if that was presumptuous on my part. It looked like an oversight moreso than emphasis. Apologies, won't happen again. Dammej 06:47, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict x2) Just saying after the fact, I didn't see it as I was fixing my paper that is due tomorrow, but I didn't ok that. And I also agree that it belongs in both places. Because speculation is the most common addition and then undo around here, having it in both places can't hurt. And it semes to fit there as well. Anyway Spart about the policy about voting and moving and etc., input please. Lancer1289 06:52, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. No harm, no foul. SpartHawg948 06:52, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. No harm, no foul. Lancer1289 06:54, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Archiving of Article Talk Pages
As I am working on the whole article deletion and the rules behind that, something came up and I think that it is something we need to discuss. Because talk pages, like the Talk:Mass Effect 2 page, have gotten extremely long, and after looking at some other wiki's, I was wondering what you thought about archiving article talk pages? Personally I think that it would be a good idea, and I have a few suggestions/ideas on that. The first one being, it is an admin only privilege but some guidelines are needed. Lancer1289 19:44, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was wondering when this would come up. I wholeheartedly agree with you that we need to archive talk pages when they get rather lengthy. And I concur that archiving of talk pages should be done by admins. What were the other suggestions? SpartHawg948 22:03, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Setting how many comments are allowed before archiving or the size of the page before archiving, making very clear that only admins are permitted to archive talk pages, setting a time limit on how long some discussions are allowed on the page, (becuase if you haven't noticed, a lot of old conversations that have been dead for years in some cases, get comments and an argument starts), creating an archives category that will only include these archived pages. That's about all I got right about now, but I'm sure that I can think of a few more. Also I am about to post the guidelines on the issue of article actions, (move, delete, etc). I'll draw up a document and do you think we should get Tullis and DRY involved. I know it may be an obvious question, but again I'm still learning the ropes here. Lancer1289 22:15, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, you threw a lot out there, so here it is. I agree with all your proposals except the one to set a time limit on how long some discussions are allowed on the page. It's the Libertarian streak in me. Free speech and all that. Everything else seems fine and dandy as far as I'm concerned, although yes, this is something all the admins should have some input on. Also, if you're bored and want a laugh, look at the link in my last post on the Talk:Earth page. It's kind of an old commercial, so you've probably seen it, but it always gets me laughing. SpartHawg948 22:19, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea that gets me laughing too. Well then I'll just throw out the time limit then, and I'll draw up a document and then shoot an email to DRY and Tullis. This will take some time as I just need to look around a few more times. Also I'll shot you an email as well.
 * One last thing I just though of, setting a limit on the amount of comments/size the archives are. Again I'll draw something up and we'll see where it goes. Lancer1289 22:23, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good call. Don't want the archives themselves getting too big. SpartHawg948 22:27, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Emails sent, that took longer than I thought it would. Lancer1289 02:57, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well Tullis responded and she said for us to talk this out. So I'm waiting for DRY to respond, but if he doesn't respond, what do you think? Lancer1289 18:16, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * He'll probably respond. But if not, you already have my answers to all your questions here. I'm all for your suggestions here. SpartHawg948 20:17, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then I'll wait until the 23rd to see what DRY thinks. That seems like enough time, unless you think I should wait longer. Lancer1289 20:26, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's plenty of time. If he hasn't responded by then, I just may have to contact the relevant authorities! :P SpartHawg948 20:29, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're going to be archiving talk pages, I would like to suggest that you archive them using tabs instead of the current archive-boxes. The tabs just look neater and more elegant or at least they do on the One Piece wikia.Bastian964 03:14, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * With me, that is what I was planning on, becuse those boxes are really more reserved for user talk pages. I was actually looking around, never saw the One Piece wiki, but the MW2 Talk Page at the CoD wiki, is something along the lines of what I was thinking of. Lancer1289 03:20, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I only skimmed the site, and was unable to find any talk pages with archive tabs. Can you provide an example? I saw an article that had what I would call tabs at the top of it, but I'm not sure if they are the same thing you're talking about, because I found them to be anything but neat and elegant. They looked a bloody mess, and if that's what you're referring to, I'm afraid I'll be voting no. Again though, I'm not even sure if we're talking about the same thing, so if you could, a link to a specific example would be wonderful. SpartHawg948 03:20, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

User:Tipota has tabs on their talk page.Bastian964 03:31, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent. It turns out that it is the same thing I was referring to, but it looks pretty different on that talk page then it did on the page I was looking at. It does look much better on the talk page, and I could live with those here, but I do prefer the COD one Lancer brought up. However, personally, I prefer a third option. I'm partial to how they do it on wikipedia (or, I should say one of the ways, since I noticed a couple of different formats). For examples, see wikipedia:Talk:Mass Effect, and for a more filled out example, see wikipedia:Talk:Israel. I prefer this option to either of the others as it takes up less space, even when you have many, many archives, like the Israel page does. So, since we seem to have three differing opinions, I suggest we do what we always do and put it up for a vote. SpartHawg948 03:46, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, a new forum page in the watercooler section would be a good idea. I was thinking about a new forum section where we could talk about these things, policies sounded like a good name, but I can refine it and post something in the projects forum. Anyway getting back on topic, a fourm page, good or not. Lancer1289 03:57, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. SpartHawg948 04:03, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright I'll get on that and I'll post a notice that since this is a vote, like any other, it will last for 7 days. Lancer1289 04:12, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, now all we can do is wait. Lancer1289 04:21, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) As with most things here, I'd suggest that a formal policy over exactly how long and how large a talk page is or the intervals of time necessary to pass is probably serious overkill &mdash; particularly since I suspect it will only ever be applicable to a small minority of pages. I'd just periodically archive anything that seems too long. Note that care should be taken not to inadvertently archive active topics which happen to be mid-page. (Note too that archive-box can handle multiple sub-pages without difficulty, in a variety of different formats.) --DRY 05:50, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I did send you an email DRY about it, not sure if you got it. But Spart really didn't want a time limit and I am neutral on the opinion. I can see both sides but this is something we need to hammer out. Lancer1289 06:11, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if I interperated DRY correctly, the policies I sent to you would, and in my opinion, should serve as guidelines for archiving, rather than "this is the limit" sort of thing. So once this whole image thing is sorted out, we can get on this. Lancer1289 07:22, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Description change
The MediaWiki description of this wikia isn't accurate so I'm trying to see if I can get it changed. My edit to the talk page didn't appear on the latest activity section so I would like your (and anyone else's) opinion on the matter. Thanks. Bastian964 03:46, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Policy Forum
As I was thinking whether to create a project forum for this, I'd like your opinion first. While I was looking around at other wikis for the archive thing, I also noticed that most wikis have a forum where official policy can be discussed and any needs can be attended to. This is actually something I can work on myself as the involved templates aren't that complicated, but I'd like your opinion on this first. Lancer1289 05:03, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, sounds like a good idea. If possible, maybe sandbox it first? That way we can flesh it out and get input and all that before implementing it. SpartHawg948 05:21, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I'd open a project forum about it after I have the templates and a proposed forum main page up. This will probably take some time so I'm sure you'll know when it is up. Now uploading images, some coding, hmm, and I still have to overhaul those class guides. Ah to many projects. I'm glad my summer classes are almost over. Lancer1289 05:24, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it is up, and all I really need is a name. I have a small list but I like Petitioner's Stage. Again I'll update as I go, but please voice your opinions. Forum:Policy Forum. Lancer1289 07:12, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be quite honest here - I'm not a fan of 'petitioner's stage'. It seems entirely to melodramatic, at least to me. I'm not too sure I have any alternatives yet, but I'll try and come up with some. Something straightforward, with an obvious name that you can see and right away know what you're dealing with. In fact, 'Policy Forum' might work well in that regard, but I'll see if I can think of any others. SpartHawg948 19:19, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with SpartHawg that calling it simply Policy Forum might be the better option. It simply sounds more professional and makes it easier to find for people who don't already know about it. Bastian964 19:23, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, shouldn't we be talking about this on the Policy Forum page? Isn't that the entire point of having a policy forum? :)> Bastian964 19:28, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well first we really do need a name and I still need to hammer down the rules first. Again I am looking at other wikis for examples so I have a project page open right now. Once it is up then we can get some things sorted out. However again most other wikis have a forum like this from an in universe perspective. But Policy forum still sounds a little bland to me. Again I presented name, and becuase I am not good with names, I really could use a new one. Lancer1289 19:33, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant the Forum:Policy Forum. I was trying to be mildly ironic. Bastian964 19:36, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I am working on some templates for this proposal. Anyway I still haven't come up with any new names but if we must go with a generic name, then may I suggest a different name: Wiki Policies. I really just don't like Policy by itself, but again I really think that we should have an in-universe theme, but I will accept the decision whatever it may be. Lancer1289 07:34, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Hey Spart, I finished all the tempaltes that I can without the new forum's name. You can see them all in my sandbox. I have based them off of what I have seen on other wikis and I do think that they are good. I also have the Talk Page archive header there as well. The reason that it is like that, is to get people's attention and so that it gets their attention. So again what do you think. Also please take a look at the forum, becuase it seems that once you vote or comment somewhere, everyone seems to pay attention. :) Lancer1289 22:08, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * So I've noticed! And believe you me, I am working on using that power for good, and not evil. :P SpartHawg948 22:22, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * So I'm just wondering is that why you haven't said anything on the forum page. Not trying to be rude here of course and appoligies in advance if it comes off that way. However, I do think getting more than three votes for the name of a new forum is a good idea, becuase people might ask, "Wait when was this name voted on," or something like that. Also did you get a chance to look at the templates? Again appligies for any rudeness that may have come across.
 * Also, I finally setted the war between my graphics cards on my desktop. Now I can finally play ME2 again on it yea. Lancer1289 01:54, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the reason I hadn't said anything on the forum page was because I wasn't here to do so. I left my last response and then rushed out, as I was already running late. Now that I'm back, I can give input. SpartHawg948 03:38, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh now I really feel like an idoit. Sorry Spart. Now I have to once again bash my head into a wall excuse me. Lancer1289 03:40, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Perpsective
Spart I was looking around at some other wikis, again, this time the Gearspedia and I noticed a template they use on a few of their articles that can be applied here. Their Real World template is used on their articles describing real world articles. Their articles like ours here are written from an in game perpsective, but their articles on the games, like the Gears of War 2 page, are written from the real world perspective. The same applies to their DLC articles like the All Fronts Collection article. I was wondering if we should use a modification of that template here for articles like Mass Effect, Overlord, etc. However wikis like the Dragon Age wiki, have a simiar style for their articles along the same lines. So again your thoughs. Lancer1289 19:29, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't their Real World template be in the All Fronts Collection article? :P I'm somewhat averse to the idea of having a real-world template, because I fear that people will see it, and take it as a green-light to start creating all sorts of minute and pointless real-world articles, like the ones that were created a while back about Jennifer Hale and Mark Meer, or will restart the BioWare article or something like that. As you've likely noticed, we've tried as much as possible to keep real-world articles off the wiki, keeping it as purely in-game as possible. Basically, I don't want us to end up like Halopedia. Take a look at this. 1,163 real-world articles, mostly pointless one-liners, such as the article on Fred Tatasciore (aka Saren). 30 words in total, only 7 of which are relevant to Halo. Totally needless. So yeah, I'm extremely hesitant to make any sort of move towards a more real-world oriented format. SpartHawg948 19:52, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * You know I never thought about it like that, I guess it takes someone else looking at something to see all sides of the issue. I completly see your point and I just thought I'd mention it. The tempalte in hindsight would be very unnecessary and I can see multiple edits along the lines and articles being created just like that. Consindering that Halo category is almost as large as our wiki, that is scary, and I see the unnecessary point. Anyway would you agree, that without any other informtion or notes, that the ME, ME2 articles are written from a different perspective and should be kept that way? Lancer1289 19:57, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. They are, by necessity, written from a different perspective. I can't really see them being written from an in-universe perspective! Talk about breaking the fourth wall! Although, if they realized they were in a video game, it could lead to certain advantages, much as we see here... I mean, if Shep could just dial down the difficulty setting, the Reapers would be a cake-walk! :) SpartHawg948 20:02, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed they break the 4th wall alright. And that seen from Spaceballs gets me every time. And yes while the Reapers would be a cakewalk, the game then would loose focus if Shepard could defeat the Reapers with a pile of feathers or somthing like that. Lancer1289 20:13, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Or just go back to the last save whenever he came across an enemy that was too tough. 'Aw crap! The Thresher Maw got me again. I'm just gonna go back to the last save and avoid it this time.' :P SpartHawg948 20:19, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Got another Bone to Pick
This is getting tedious after fixing this for the 100th time, at least, I think we should put something in the Style guide about how we don't put walkthough information into main articles for characters and places. Except in specific cursumstances like a tactics section or the walkthough itself. Opinions? Lancer1289 03:10, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. If it's a recurring issue, go right ahead. Hopefully it'll deter at least a few people. SpartHawg948 03:12, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a massive recurring issue, also I am still debating this myself since Tuesday, but do you think we need disamb tags on the Aegis and Aegis Pack articles? Again I really don't know where to fall on this one. Lancer1289 03:15, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, saw Aegis (as well as Hoplos and the other planets in the system), and noticed there was no trivia. And, as I knew without even looking up the names that hoplos, aegis, and kopis are all references to ancient Greek militaria, had to rectify the issue. Personally, I don't think disambiguation tags are needed to distinguish between Aegis and Aegis Pack, but that's just me. SpartHawg948 03:33, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea that is kind of the way I've been leaning too. So I'll take it down and how about your opinion on the "No Walkthrough information in articles" bit.


 * We have all these nice tempaltes, why not use them. Anyway thoughts. Lancer1289 03:36, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's my thought. Aria's little intro speech always gets on my nerves. Too ostentatious and melodramatic. Oh... wait. That wasn't what you wanted my opinion on. Yeah, the above text sounds good. A lot better than Aria's spiel. (Sorry, I'm doing the 'first talk with Aria' stuff on a new playthrough right now. Great character, just hate her intro speech) SpartHawg948 03:43, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice, yea Aria is a great character but they really could have done that speech better, or at least shorter. I can see why they did it that way, but still overly long. I'll just slide that in then. Lancer1289 03:49, July 11, 2010 (UTC)