User talk:SpartHawg948

Pluto/Ganymede
While I found it slightly difficult to find a map that includes the surface of Pluto shown in the picture on the Pluto article. I did manage to find one. If you look in the picture of Pluto on the article on the Mass Effect wiki, the top half on the right, closer to the dark side of the body shows a pretty distinctive white "burst" looking coloration. Another distinctive feature, a large brown coloration in the lower left hand corner of the body is also visible. Both of these features are visible from this |this link. This is a full-body map of Jupiter's moon Ganymede. About a third of the way across the map on the left, the "burst" formation can be seen diagonally across from a white "eye" looking structure. The brown coloration can also be seen just below and to the left of that. Obviously in the map, it shows that Ganymede is actually mostly whites and greys but this does not change the map. Here is your link proving that images of Ganymede were used for the surface of Pluto. Vanguard15 15:49, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * And I don't know how many times that Spart and myself have said it by now, visual comparisons are not enough to justify trivia or anything else. Especially with something like this, we need an official source that it is Ganymede before we can call it trivia, not just a visual comparison and nothing more. We get an official source then I'm sure Spart will agree that is fine, but since the entire thing is based on a visual comparison, then no. 16:25, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ask for an image of the surface of Ganymede. I can find that myself. I asked for a source to support your claim that BioWare used images of Ganymede to depict Pluto. This means a source (a legitimate one) that states explicitly that BioWare used images of Ganymede to depict Pluto. The image you provided isn't even the same one purportedly used to depict Pluto. A visual comparison is what is known as 'original research', and original research is not admissible as solid fact. Find a source, and the info can go back on the page. SpartHawg948 16:37, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Apologies
Hello. I'm writing to apologise for our little edit war which you blocked me for two weeks ago, don't know if you remember. The fact was, I didn't realise you and Lancer1289 were sending me those messages explaining why what I was doing was wrong and so I just got worked up, which I shouldn't have, so I do apologise; I wasn't trying to cause trouble. I was also tired and moody at the time because of a sore throat which only further impaired my will to stop editing and think for a minute. So anyway, sorry about that and if you wouldn't mind, pass on the message to Lancer1289.

Please respond to this so I know we can be on good terms with each other.

P.S. I would like to make a suggestion that alterations be made to the way messages are delivered so they become more noticeable whilst on site, perhaps an audio cue?

92.12.93.144 19:26, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oooohhh... coming from someone who gets all sorts of messages on a daily basis, I in no way can support an audio cue. That would drive me mad. The black bar at the top of the screen seems to suffice, and as far as I know, we don't change those in-house, as I'm pretty sure we weren't involved when it changed from an orange to a black bar. I'm not honestly sure what edit war is referred to here, as the IP used to leave the message has no messages, and the first contribution by it appears to be leaving this message. So, since I'm not sure what is being referred to, I can't really hold a grudge, can I? :P I'm not one for grudges anyways. Barring personal attacks or other such behavior (such as the time a user said they would kill me, or the time a user called me an intolerant 'fag' because they dislike my political beliefs... now there's an oxymoron, being called intolerant by someone who uses homophobic language towards someone who has different opinions), we should be good to go! :) SpartHawg948 22:01, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Retribution Summary
Hey, sorry if I made some mistakes in typing out that summary. But you may have noticed that I just typed out almost an entire article summary in a short time and therefore would appreciate cuting back on the whole "THIS ARTICLE IS IN DESPERATE NEED OF CLEANUP ASAP" type of remarks because thats pretty much borderline rude...and yes I did recognize my mistakes in capitalizing alien species names, but it was a very swift effort to get all of it typed out, so again I apologize, but I don't see the need to get on my back about helping get the storyline out there.McDarkness 22:49, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. Really? You accuse me of getting 'on [your] back' by simply trying to prevent errors of this sort in the future, and I'm the one being borderline rude? You must be joking. I used all caps to call attention to the article, because it does need a cleanup very soon, and as noted, I can't really do it, as I haven't read the book yet. You didn't make 'some' mistakes. You made a lot of mistakes. Obvious ones. That's why I left the message I did, and why I left the edit summary I did. And please, don't attempt to justify it by saying you were just trying to get it up fast. You're talking to a Non-Commissioned Officer in the USAF here. Our mantra is "Don't do it fast, do it right". At best, doing it fast means you have to go back and do it twice. At worst (in my line of work, anyways) doing it fast gets people killed. Please don't come onto my talk page using such language to accuse me of being rude. On your back indeed. SpartHawg948 22:58, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well in all fairness, wikipedia edits don't usually cause casualties, so I don't think anyone will be killed (haha). But look, that summary does need edits, alot of them, and I only typed that last part in because when you did that initial edit it somehow made that part get deleted, so I simply retyped it back in. Besides, borderline rude is not technically meant as an insult, just in reaction to your reaction which seemed alittle over the top in my opinion. You seem to take little things really personally, which isn't a bad thing, just I don't really understand why your impling that I'm being rude to you. Only trying to say that I appreciate your help in correcting this summary, but it did seem alittle over the top during the "Desperate need" (not really sure why you had to point out my mistakes in that manner). And I guess I'll simply stop editing that right where I left off since I don't feel welcome anymore, since apparently editing is rude on my part, even though I could just be misinterpreting your latest edit summary. But in the very least I hope we get this cleared up.McDarkness 23:25, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm a Noncom. It's in the blood. If you don't point out the mistakes, the person who made them will not learn from them. It's quite simple, really. And how is being called rude not an insult? My statement that you were the one who was being rude is due to the fact that you responded to my genuine attempts to help you grow and develop as an editor by coming onto my talk page and accusing me of getting on your back and being rude. How is it not rude to go off on someone who is simply trying to help you become better at what you are doing? It was no more over the top than hanging a brightly colored sign on something you wish to attract attention to. That was my sole intent. To draw attention to an article that needed work. Finally, my last edit summary did not state that you editing was rude. You made an edit that contained the same mistakes that I had attempted to advise you about in the message that you subsequently called me rude for leaving. Since it appeared to be a deliberate and willful disregarding of my attempt to help you (after you had already called me rude for doing so), I took it as a slight, as you ignoring what I had told you. If you had even acknowledged what I had told you the first time rather than just calling me rude, accusing me of being on your back, and so forth, I wouldn't have taken it as such. It wasn't aimed at getting you to stop editing, just at trying to instill in you the mindset of "Don't do it fast, do it right", as again, those were two obvious mistakes. SpartHawg948 23:36, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * "And how is being called rude not an insult?"...I believe the phrase borderline rude was used and not rude by itelf, so rude is an insult, yet borderline rude really isn't unless you have a very broad meaning for insult (and also used pretty much to top that off, so citing something like that on multiple occasions just seems rather unneeded). I have no problem what you pointed out on my talk page, I really don't. Thats because you made a legimate point there, however I was merely refering to what was on the edit summary at the time (had not read the talk page comment). I honestly thought you were merely dismissing my summary with hazard warnings and calling in a professional to help minimize the damage. That, assuming that is what was implied, would and should be under the borderline rude category, wouldn't you agree? And I'll make sure to just not capitalize the race names anymore, as your Noncom blood must contain its own linguistic skills to pick up on something like this by itself (haha).McDarkness 00:04, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it should not be in the borderline rude category. It should be in the 'concerned admin trying to make sure an article in need of help gets it' category. Your interpretation of it may have been that it was borderline rude, but if that is the case, your interpretation was flawed. At no point was it my intent to be rude, borderline or otherwise. I don't do 'borderline'. If I wanted to be rude at all, you'd know, because I don't do anything half-cocked. It's either not intended to be rude, or it's definitely intended to be rude. Not my fault you (as you admitted) rushed to judgment. The point remains, borderline rude is still rude. I could call someone a borderline idiot. If that person is insulted, am I in the right to say 'well I said borderline, so it wasn't really an insult'? Of course not. Borderline doesn't in any way change the nature of the word it precedes. SpartHawg948 00:37, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well might as well just throw in the towel on this one eh? Since I guess throwing out words saying that they dont change the nature of the word they precede is now in play. Oh, and btw borderline idiot still falls under insult category because that actually still would be meant as one, while rudeness is more situational and does not really describe a person. merely their attitude (although I understand your logic, I guess). And besides most of your replies are almost predictable, you had limited options to shift the fault in my direction. Stating that my views are beyond a doubt flawed, and also claiming that my words also have no meaning. Judge's ruling, "Your words are as empty as your future, this conversation is over." Should have known you where secretly Sovereign.
 * So... let me get this straight: Calling someone an idiot (an insult) is still an insult if you call them a borderline idiot. Calling someone rude, however (also an insult) is not an insult if you only call them borderline rude? What a whimsical world you live in! That argument, that borderline negates the insulting nature of calling someone rude, is borderline idiotic. It's not an insult, I said borderline! On another note: You do realize who would be the judge here, right? (Here's a hint... not you) Seeing as this is my talk page, the page on which I am the arbiter (or judge, if you will) of what goes on, the judge would be... that's right, me. And what's with me 'secretly where Sovereign'? Are you implying Sovereign is real, and that somehow I alone possess knowledge of where it is located? I know no such thing. So, in the real Judge's ruling: Insults are insults. Plain and simple. Try to dress them up all you like, with 'no offense', or 'all due respect' (and we know how at least one of Shep's pals feels about that one), or 'borderline', but it's still an insult. As the old and now entirely too well known saying goes, 'You can put lipstick on a pig...' SpartHawg948 01:44, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * So we are in agreement my world is more whimsical than yours? Great I'll take it. Seriously, that one ups your world were words can magically vanish and have no meaning...almost like you have a void in there somewhere. Judges Ruling: (SpartHawg): did you just burn me? and impersonate me? Its ok I let you answer that one. But just so you know what I was saying: Rude -> situational, less of an insult;Idiot -> characteristic, more offensive. But whatever you consider an insult (on your talk page, apparently) is your decision. I mean I could easily say weapons are weapons, but one being a rocket launcher and the other a sling shot, so if you don't believe in magnitude then thats ok with me. (forgot to sign the last one)McDarkness 02:38, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't 'burn' you. My point was that you aren't the judge on another persons user page. On this user talk page, there is one Judge. Me. I actually expressed that quite clearly. You have absolutely no control over this page. I could delete all your posts right now on a whim, and it would be A-Ok. Were you to change anything other than the posts you've left, however, it would be vandalism. So, to repeat myself, someone who is not a judge cannot make a judge's ruling. You can't (not here, anyways), and I can (pretty much everywhere, as I am a bureaucrat, aka the senior-most admin on this site). Now, back to semantics. Rude is not a characteristic, but is situational? Not so. People often describe others as rude, completely devoid of a certain situation being referred to. Rude is a characteristic. For example, Kanye West is rude. I was not describing a situation, I was describing a characteristic of that person. Likewise, idiot/idiotic can be a characteristic, but it can also be situational. A friend does something stupid. You call them an idiot, or their act idiotic. Are you describing a characteristic of that person? No. You are responding to a situation. Funny how words work multiple ways like that. And no, as an admin, I don't believe in magnitude or degrees. It's black and white, all or nothing. SpartHawg948 02:48, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well at least now I understand that you are too power drunk and determined to see things in such a narrow light that you missed the whole joke. Lets go over it again shall we? (Instant Replay) Judges Ruling: (nothing yet) SpartHawg: (Now I'm impersonating you) did you just burn me? (thats you saying that the void part burned you) and Impersonate me? (See now your asking if I just impersonated you). Funny how words can work in a humorous way? well not to you apparently...(P.S. Kanye West is an exception to the Rude Clause I went over earlier)McDarkness 03:09, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not power drunk. Just not able to comprehend 'jokes' of that nature. I mean, if there had been some context, some way of indicating that it had the meaning you now claim it had, maybe. I suppose in hindsight I can see how you were using it to make baseless assumptions about what I would and wouldn't think of your comments. Always appreciated, that is. Nice to know that a complete stranger thinks he (or she) knows you well enough to assume your thoughts, however laughably wrong they may be. I notice though that you completely dodged the issue of rude and idiot being both characteristic and situational. Hmmm... wonder what that means? And if you insist that Kanye West is an exception, which as I have already expressed is a word not found in my admittedly black and white, all or nothing admins lexicon, I could start naming other people about whom rude is used as a characteristic, not in a situational context. It'd be a pretty long list though. SpartHawg948 03:21, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it is very apparent that is not what you would have said, in fact you typed your reaction up there remember? And it really was not any way similar, so I guess those generic statements are indeed deemed laughable (but remember laughing is part of jokes). And now on to the whole (most likely pointless, but still ongoing apparently) debate over idiot/rude. I believe you were wondering what that means? Let me just tell you that you only proved my point. I said what you did was (borderline) rude, yet you seem to have the notion that you, as a person, are being considered entirely rude. You said calling someone an idiot was equally rude, regardless of borderline status (which apparently is considered void anyway); yet you said yourself that calling someone an idiot is characteristic, but only through saying idiotic is it situational. So therefore, situational comments have less of a (magnitude intended but non-existent as of late) impact? than characteristic. (but you can go ahead and tell me I'm wrong, and just say end or something, because I really hate this argument.) In fact I'm done.(So make go ahead and wrap it up for me.)McDarkness 03:42, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * When did I says such a thing? Not once did I claim that idiot is a characteristic, while only idiotic is situational. Nothing could be further from the truth. You mean to tell me you've never seen someone (a friend, perhaps, or classmate, or whatever) do something silly or absurd, causing you to jokingly say "you're such an idiot", or something to that effect? What could be more situational? Idiot and idiotic can both be characteristic and situational, just like rude. However, both idiot and rude can still be insults when used in a situational manner, and 'mitigation' doesn't really work. Not sure if this was me 'make go ahead' and wrapping it up for you, as I have no idea how to 'make go ahead', but whatever. Maybe it has to do with me and 'where secretly Sovereign'. Seriously though, I've been trying to bring this to a close for a while, as it really isn't going anywhere, and there are only so many of these circular arguments and twisting of my words that I can take. So if you seriously want to drop it, then do so. After all, no one is compelling you to continue posting on my talk page. SpartHawg948 04:02, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * As an addendum, I should probably point out that (as an NCO) I'm not that prone to heart disease. Physical conditioning and all that. Plus, no history of heart disease in the family. And heart attacks don't really result in 'blood everywhere', either. :P But hey, whatev. You want to talk to an automated message to score some kind of silly points or whatnot, be my guest. If it keeps you from making edits that need to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb later, or from making inane arguments on my talk page, then so much the better. Maybe we should get you some more automated messages to talk to... SpartHawg948 04:06, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

No points were involved, and that automated message was alot nicer than you, I'll give it points for that. Wish at least the closing you did would have been nicer, in fact it wasn't nice at all. So have fun with your important matters then. Cheers--McDarkness 04:24, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * So much for just letting it go, and for being done (I believe the exact quote was "In fact I'm done.") I'll admit, my last comment was a bit acerbic, but it seems pretty uncalled for to post disingenuous comments like the one you did after an auto-message, giving the impression that you are the innocent victim of some sort of monster. After all, let's not forget how this started. You were having difficulties editing, I offered advice, trying to be helpful, and you jumped all over me for it, calling my actions 'borderline rude' and accusing me of being all on your back and whatnot. Sorry if I felt compelled to defend myself. I guess I should have known. I mean, no good deed goes unpunished, right? As for being not nice, keep in mind that the entire time this nonsense has been going on, I have been carrying out a friendly and good-natured discussion with several other users in the very next section. What is the one variable present here that is not present there? You wish my closing had been nicer, and I wish the same about your first post. I was only trying to help, and look what it got me. SpartHawg948 04:41, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, actually I think I just figured out why you were pissed. "Just so you know that advice was bad" was refering to me going to your homepage, not the editing advice you gave, which only pointed out standard protocol. Unless you knew that, in which case this changes nothing I suppose.--McDarkness 05:13, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * But how can you call the advice bad? You didn't follow it. It says to leave me a message on my talk page if I can help with anything. Not to go to my home page. Your first post was to criticize me for trying to help you out. At no point did you seek help of any sort. So again, how can you say that advice was bad when you never followed it? SpartHawg948 05:35, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Lol, I see whats going on...you thought I was being serious...you could not be more wrong about that comment. It was an attempt at humor. On a side note, having re-read this entire thing, I honestly think you may have misinterpreted my tone, as you clearly seem far more offended than one would expect. But the whole inane argument thing? Ouch. But writing an entire summary only for it to be discarded as junk does seem to put one on edge. So basically if your sole intention was to discard me, then burn in hell lol. But trying to justify yourself is something completely understandable, and in that case we got off on the wrong foot. Innocent victim of some sort of monster? Interesting take. But in all honesty, I was never trying to say anything truly offensive, so if apologies are in order, I will glady provide them.--McDarkness 19:14, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * When did I ever, and I mean ever try to 'discard' your summary as junk? Never. All I did was attempt to help both you and the site by informing you of site policy, then reminding you of site policy when you again (knowingly or not) violated it despite my express written comment (i.e. changing Reaper to reaper even after I informed you quite specifically that it was Reaper), and asked you to use spell check, as there were a great many painfully obvious spelling errors (for example, 'frigrates'). At no point did I attempt to discard anything of yours. Not once. As for the last bit, how was I not supposed to take you calling advice you never followed 'bad' any way other than seriously? You say I could not be more wrong, but you gave no indication in your comment that it was in jest. You said in full "Tried that, did not work out, pretty sure you had a heart attack. Blood everywhere. Was not a good idea. Just so you know that advice was bad." No indication that it was not serious. In fact, you stated that you had 'tried that' (not true), and that 'that advice was bad'. It just seemed that you were A) Blowing my comments all out of proportion (the 'heart attack' bit, which was also annoying as heart attacks of course don't result in blood everywhere), and B) Disingenuous, as to a newcomer who is unaware of the automated nature of those messages, it may seem like a two-sided conversation, when it was, in fact, npt. Throwing hyperbolic fuel onto an already smoldering flame generally isn't wise. So basically, it seems like, while I may have misinterpreted some of your comments, you in turn totally misinterpreted mine. I never once attempted to, or stated a desire to, 'discard' your contributions. I was coming at this from a genuine desire to help, and your initial response floored me with the seeming rudeness and ingratitude (which appears not to have been the intent, in hindsight). So if you do, as you say, wish to apologize, feel free to, though at the same time don't feel compelled to. And if not, let's just let this one go. SpartHawg948 20:22, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

I suppose all of my comments after the initial one could have sounded badly, but in actuality I was just trying to figure out why you got so seemingly ticked off. I mean I guess I can see purpose in your reaction now. And as a side note, the way I took the Reaper caps problem was that Reaper would be capitalized, but not Reapers, so I changed the ones with the 's'. But your right about there being no blood in a heart attack, unless of course the heart is exposed I guess, then there may be blood at that point. So sorry about the "hyberbolic" flames, and I guess everything else that is not considered hyperbolic flames. Oh, and don't have spellcheck on my Ipad, so that advice was not ignored, simply not possible. Anyway, letting this one go seems reasonable enough to me.--McDarkness 22:04, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome. You will get absolutely no arguments from me on that one. SpartHawg948 22:06, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

The Grissom Discrepancy
^Sounds like a cheesy novel title. You got ME: Revelation? I need to know when Jon Grissom was born. The article says 2113, but that doesn't jive with a bunch of other things (or maybe those other things don't jive with it). The problem is thus:


 * 2113 - Jon Grissom is born.
 * 2183 - Mass Effect: Ascension occurs.
 * 2186 - Mass Effect: Retribution occurs, three years after Ascension.
 * 2188 - Jon Grissom dies at age 75, and his funeral is held six months before Retribution.

See what I mean? A date there is wrong, but I don't know which one. I don't have Revelation or Ascension, and I won't get Retribution for at least another day; all I've got to go on is what this wiki says. I'm hoping an editor here made a typo, because that's obviously easier to resolve than the books' author making a mistake. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:07, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually have Revelation right here next to me. Let me take a look, and see what I can see. SpartHawg948 23:09, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Take your time, I've got dinner. It's crab cake night! -- Commdor (Talk) 23:14, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yay! :) SpartHawg948 23:15, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * So, I didn't recall Grissom's birth year being mentioned in Revelation, and it wasn't in the first chapter with all the other biographical info on him, so on a hunch I checked the history of the Jon Grissom article. Apparently, per the person who first added the info, 2113 was reached via extrapolation. He is stated as being 70 when Ascension occurs (purportedly, I'm not quite sure where my copy of Ascension is to verify that), and 2183-70 = 2113. Of course, that doesn't necessarily make him born in 2113, as I'm currently 25, and 2010-25 = 1985, but I wasn't born in 1985. So basically, it's speculation. Can't say how that factors in with the other dates. SpartHawg948 23:21, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like it comes down to what Ascension says about him. If you ever find your copy of Ascension and can figure out what's what, let me know. This little problem has been a nuisance for my planned update to the Timeline. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:46, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, FridgeRaider got it off audio book. It didn't really help. I'm of the opinion that since the only exact thing about Grissom's age is he died at age 75, we go with Retribution happening in 2186 and that being his death year until some later ME book or game corrects this, if ever. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:30, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... well how does that jive at all with him being 70 at some point in time during 2183? SpartHawg948 00:38, July 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * He has to be dead in 2186 for Retribution to be in 2186, which is three years after the events of Ascension in 2183. If Grissom really died in 2188 and was 70 in 2183, then that means the first chapter of Retribution is incorrect. We've got two conflicting statements, all I think we can do without more info is to pick one and stick with it. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:50, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Which statement, though? Maybe we can get some clarification from the author? This is kind of maddening, as both books are authored by the same guy. So much for continuity... SpartHawg948 00:53, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm all for accepting Retribution's statement. Not only is it precise (we know exactly how old Grissom was when he died), but since Retribution is the latest event in the ME universe thus far, we can think of it as a retcon. There's always the chance Mass Effect 3 might straighten things out. And yeah, I've heard of at least one other continuity problem: Anderson is referred to as an admiral, and Udina as a councilor. One guy said it could still fit all ME storylines if you say Anderson retired from the Council and Udina got his position, but that's a stretch. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:38, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes that is a stretch, but I throught he wasn't trying to set canon, and that seems to be setting it. Lancer1289 01:44, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Who knows though? This could be BioWare's first attempt at establishing canon. B/c remember, in the 'default' ME2 playthrough, Anderson is an Admiral, and Udina is a Councilor. SpartHawg948 01:46, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Or who knows and I really don't want ot open up that agrument again. Personally I do think we some clarification on this from both Drew Karpyshyn and BioWare on whether it is a mistake/oversight, or it is set in stone canon. Personlaly I really don't like Udina as humanity's councilor, bnut that's just me. Lancer1289 01:50, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. It really must just be me then. My roommate is the same way. He finally finished his first Mass Effect playthrough a few days ago and picked Anderson too. I told him I picked Udina, and he said pretty much the same thing you did. Am I really the only one who thinks Udina would be a better Councilor? On another note... this page is really overdue for an archiving, but I don't wanna... But I also don't wanna scroll all the way to the bottom. Even the ToC is too long... I blame Anderson and his lousy Councilor-ing. Go Udina!!! SpartHawg948 01:55, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Anderson isn't a politician, that's why some people (like me) want him to be in a leading position. Udina comes off as untrustworthy, even if he may be a more capable Councilor than Anderson. It's like choosing between Eisenhower and Nixon. I'm not sure I like the idea of a definitive canon. It sidelines all Shepards except those who follow a certain path, and takes away from the whole role-playing idea. -- Commdor (Talk) 02:04, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nixon was all kinds of trustworthy! It was his underlings that weren't. He was solid as a rock when it came to running the country. And I'd take experience over a novice any day. Eisenhower was much more qualified to be President than Anderson is to be Councilor. Anderson was a Captain. Middle management. Eisenhower, on the other hand, was a General of the Army, the very tippity top rank, who commanded the most massive allied force in history, dealing with all sorts of complex management, budgetary, and logistical issues that would provided ample training to the duties of the Presidency. Comparing Anderson and Ike is like comparing the manager of a Kinkos to the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. There's being not a politician, and there's being not a politician, but having comparable experience. Anderson is the former, Eisenhower the latter.


 * My reason for liking Udina is as follows - bright eyed naivete and good will won't help humanity out at the top. Experience and know-how will. Udina has it. Anderson doesn't. Simple as that. SpartHawg948 02:10, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but Udina still stabbed you in the back in ME. NO FORGIVENESS! -- Commdor (Talk) 02:16, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * And Anderson held out on you in ME2. Neither one is exactly kosher in my book. One sells you out in the interests of furthering humanity's place on the Citadel, the other lacks the basic trust and faith in you to tell you he (and the Alliance) suspect Cerberus involvement in the disappearance of humans. Udina's backstabbing was to be expected. Classic frog and the scorpion story. Anderson's was the true betrayal, IMO. SpartHawg948 02:20, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Commander Shepard for Human Councilor in ME3! But anyway, I picked Anderson, but really only because Udina rubbed me the wrong way. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he betrays us in spades in ME3, possibly in a Saren-esque "help the Reapers" way. Anderson may not have as much experience as Udina, but at least he wants to help Shepard. And in Mass Effect, helping Shepard helps everyone. Arbington 03:31, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, except for those times that helping Shepard helps Cerberus, or helps the Shadow Broker... or the times Shepard helps him/her-self. I liked how on on some missions (I'm thinking of the one to recover the data from the dead Cerberus operative the Blue Suns killed) there were three options: Help the Alliance, Help Cerberus, or Look out for #1! I usually chose the third option. :) I hope Udina doesn't end up betraying everybody. I just don't get a good vibe from putting Anderson in charge. I see catastrophes happening when situations arise that he has no clue how to handle, and instead just wants to be all palsy-walsy. I like Udina because he gets things done, dammit! And when you say he doesn't have as much experience as Udina, you mean he has no experience, right? Because that is the case. And while I may be all for political rookies at lower levels, for super high-level stuff like that, I want someone who knows what the hell he's doing.
 * P.S. I concur! Shep for Council ME3!!! It's what the people want! SpartHawg948 03:38, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * If humanity has the quads to make Harkin our first C-Sec officer, we can handle Councilor Anderson. Plus, Udina is his "Advisor", and I have a feeling that he's running a bit more of the political part of the show, and Anderson is handling the military part. If Udina is Councilor, Anderson handles the military, and Udina the politics. It would appear that the result is the same either way. The only difference is who is in the spotlight, and frankly, Anderson makes humanity look a little less like a load of jerks in my opinion. Arbington 03:48, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * But what military part is Anderson handling? I doubt they just handed him the Citadel fleet and said 'go to town'. SpartHawg948 03:55, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have been a little clearer. As a Council, they obviosly have to vote on issues, so no race has more power then the others. What Advisor Anderson/Udina would do is advise Councilor Udina/Anderson on any issues the other is unexperienced with. Thus, humanity would have the opinion of whover would handle the situation best brought to the table. The human councilor would just be the one who proposed the ideas; they wouldn't necessarily always be his. Thus, the result is essentially the same, as the same opinion would be used either way. Arbington 04:08, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a good point. On the one hand, Anderson doesn't really care about politics, and is obviously sick of the political maneuvering after two years on the Council, so he leaves a lot of the day-to-day stuff to Udina, and he does value Udina's political instincts, so he heeds his advice. And on the other, Udina is a total pragmatist, and as such realizes that Anderson has a good head on his shoulders, and a pretty ample supply of common sense, and as such, would be inclined to keep him around for the advice, even if he had a choice in the matter (which, IIRC, Udina really doesn't in ME2. He's stuck with Anderson). So yeah, either way, you really do get the best of both in one package, don't you? SpartHawg948 04:45, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, though personally, I think the council should've rewarded the Commander with a seat on the Council, instead of two background characters. Eh, maybe in ME3, right? The people most definately do want it, after all! Or not. Depends on what your Shepard did, really. Most people would probably be okay with my Shepard... on Omega. Arbington 04:59, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed! My Shep is also one who would be more well-accepted in the Terminus. Games always work that way though. I remember all throughout Oblivion (if you've played it, you'll know what I'm talking about. If not, sorry...) I was thinking 'I bet once I beat the main quest line and save everyone, they'll make my character the Count of Kvatch!'. Did they? Nope. I got a suit of armor for my troubles. A suit of armor! Same deal here. Though at the end of the trilogy, there really isn't a reason they couldn't make Shep the Councilor. After all, you can do anything to the main character at the end of a trilogy. Just look at what happened to the Master Chief... Maybe we should start a site? 'Shepard for Councilor', and then bombard the forums with it and whatnot. SpartHawg948 05:03, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oblivion is by far one of my favorite games of all time! You may have noticed that my wikia avatar is a page from the Mysterium Xarxes, and if you haven't, well... that's what it is! There are a few mods out there for Oblivion that rectify this "not the Count of Kvatch" problem, but I usually try to mod in very small increments, as it's a good way to screw up a game (and a computer for that matter). Also, indeed, Chief totally got the short end of the stick. Er, ship. 343 Industries will probably deal with the whole Chief issue, though. And they'll do it wrong. Farewell, Bungie-made Halo! You shall be missed! Also (Or also also. I've said also a lot in this post.), I have for a while thought that Shep will become Councilor in ME3, and I always assumed that Udina's treachery would set all that off. He was always kissing up to the Council, and now, he's reached the top of that ladder. The only more powerful group is the Reapers, and I see some Reaper-joining in Udina's future. Arbington 05:24, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's right! You're the one with the awesome avatar! As for the modding, I play it on the 360, so I'm kind of out of luck there. Although The Shivering Isles did kind of make it better. I mean, a Count is a Count, but a Daedric Prince? How cool is that? I mean, you can even mess with the weather! But yeah, maybe we'll see some awesome career advancement for Shep, and maybe not. I'm not so sure about Udina, though. I think the case can be made that there is another higher rung on the ladder. Not the Council ladder, but the human ladder. He could be angling to become Prime Minister of the Alliance. That would be pretty sweet. For Udina-lovers like me, that is. Anywho, we'll see. I want Shep for Councilor, but my dark horse candidate is Zaeed. That would certainly make Council meetings... interesting. The Human Councilor gets mad and shoots the person petitioning the Council. Good times... :P SpartHawg948 05:40, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Zaeed for Shepard's Advisor or some other position of power! Let's see those krogan get fish put in the lake with a merc on their trail! Plus, objectively, relations with the Terminus Systems would improve dramaticaly. Arbington 05:51, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome! I can't stop laughing after reading that. Take that, krogan! SpartHawg948 06:01, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I felt so bad crushing that krogan's dreams though. I never thought a sad krogan was possible, but there he was, with no seafood in sight. I felt like just saying "There's no Presidium fish, but I could swing by a Long-John Silver's on my way back from the Terminus.". Alas, that wasn't one of the dialogue options. Oh well. Arbington 06:19, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how a krogan would handle hush puppies though. I personally got a kick out of crushing his dreams. But that's just me. :P SpartHawg948 06:48, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, I'm just a big fan of the krogan. As for hush puppies, even I don't like those, and I'm human. Now steak, that seems more like a food that any species would appreciate, but maybe that's just the Texan in me speaking. I could even see krogan opening a steakhouse. "Wrex's Gravyphage". It should be the next hub location in ME3. There, or a theater showing "Elcor Hamlet". You could spend hours there, and that's good, because you'd have to! Nah, in all actuality, I hope they bring back the whole Citadel, or expand Omega for the hub location in ME3. Arbington 07:16, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

August 7th
Hey Spart, just figured I should inform you that I'll be gone all day on August 7th, barring any last minute changes. I am going to Six Flags: Great America with some friends. Oh and about the concert on Sunday, enjoy the concert and have fun. Lancer1289 00:32, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Neat-o gang, neat-o! Super duper! We actually have one of those right here in Santa Clara. It's right across the street from where the new San Francisco 49ers stadium will be built. Have fun with that (since I probably won't remember any of this next week), and I aim to rock my face off Sunday night! \m/ SpartHawg948 01:19, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Whoops
I think I may have inadvertently raised that article from the dead by adding the delete tag too. My apologies. Good thing you had spare garlic or silver or sunlight or whatever it is those things are vulnerable to. :) -- Dammej ( talk ) 03:37, July 31, 2010 (UTC)