User talk:Bastian964

Hi, welcome to Mass Effect Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Cerberus Daily News page.

Be sure to check out our Style Guide and Community Guidelines to help you get started, and please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- SpartHawg948 (Talk) 23:36, February 7, 2010

Speculation
Please do not remove the speculation bodies in the Wiki pages that are noted as speculation. Speculation is fully permitted as per the Style Guide as long as it's labeled as such and contains supporting info.

If you disagree with a particular body of speculation that does not conflict with the Style Guide, please discuss it in the page's talk section and allow the moderators decide if it's appropriate or not.

Shadowdragon00000


 * As the item in question would appear to not meet the requirement that speculation have supporting evidence (as all the supporting evidence presented was either self-contradictory or was itself speculative or unsubstantiated), Bastian964 was completely justified in removing it, and I fully support that decision. SpartHawg948 06:47, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

There was plenty of supporting evidence towards it. I could have elaborated in much further detail, but that would result in a much larger page.

Shadowdragon00000


 * No, there really wasn't any evidence. Just supposition. Evidence means demonstrable fact, not "seem to", and "it's probable", and assumptions about an entire race based on one example when it is explicitly stated in-game that it is unknown if this example is indicative of the species as a whole. You said "allow the moderators decide if it's appropriate or not." As an admin (aka a moderator), I have made that call. SpartHawg948 07:15, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Kasumi in the Cerberus Network
Regarding your edits to Cerberus Network and Template:Series, I think you're jumping the gun. While there is indeed no evidence that Kasumi will be available through ME2's in-game downloadable content pipeline, there's no evidence otherwise either. You seem to be basing your edits on the fact that Kasumi, unlike every bit of Cerberus Network DLC before, is paid content and doesn't seem to fit the CN purpose. I think you should consider the example of Dragon Age: Origins' DLC system, though: both exclusive free content and paid content are available through the in-game system, and paid content is also available outside that system in Xbox or Windows Marketplace. Who's to say Kasumi isn't released like that, on both distribution systems. With that in mind, I am going to revert you edits to the above article and template. We should wait until Kasumi is out before we assume the DLC won't be purchasable through the CN as well as Marketplace; why would BioWare make ME2's system so different from Dragon Age's? -- Commdor (Talk) 17:12, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

If you had read my earlier reason for removing it you would know that "Once you are a member, Cerberus Network content is available to you at no extra charge." ([]) This is very strong proof that she will not be available via the Cerberus Network, thus I will be reverting your edits.Bastian964 17:45, March 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * All right then. We'll see how it turns out. -- Commdor (Talk) 17:47, March 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * I was right about paid DLC being purchasable through the Cerberus Network (I cite the now available Alternate Appearance Pack), but I will concede that there's an apparent difference between "Cerberus Network DLC" and "paid DLC on the Cerberus Network". However, since we now know all ME2 DLC is available through the CN, the CN article needs to list that. I figure the best solution for everyone is to have one section on the page for the free items, and another section for paid items. I'll go ahead and update everything accordingly. -- Commdor (Talk) 18:06, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
Look I want to appoligze for the edits on the CDN page. I have had a long day and I know that is not excuse but I was trying to restore the post. I have seen people banned for that sort of thing and after a few seconds to think, that is not what I want. I know that I offened you and I do appoligize, I am not here to make any enemies and I do regret my actions. Nothing today for me has gone right, and this just made it worse. Again I am deeply sorry. Lancer1289 02:34, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * All I can offer is my appology and hope you accept it. I'm not here to make enemies and this just added to my list of things that have gone completely wrong for me today. I was trying to undo my work but you resoned before I could save the page. This is one error in judgement in a very long day. Again my heartfelt appology and I can only hope you accept it. Lancer1289 02:52, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Mira/Word Paperclip confirmation
Just wanted to point out in reference to your edit summary changing the wording of the Mira pop-up comment that "Unless you have a statement from someone at Bioware you can not be certain it is a reference."- we actually do have a statement from someone who was at BioWare at the time and wrote almost everything Noveria-related (which would include Mira). We've had this statement, found on Talk:Mira, since 26 January 2010. The individual in question is Stormwaltz, aka Chris L'Etoile, who is a (former) writer form BioWare who worked on both Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2. If his statement isn't good enough proof, then we need to go back and edit every bit of trivia that is tagged as devconfirmed, since he is the source for all the devconfirmation. Just wanted to let you know! :) SpartHawg948 06:28, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Request to Fix Broken Links
Hello. I am attempting to embark upon a project of clearing broken links from the Mass Effect Wikia. It is, however, against MEwiki rules for me to modify another user's posts on Talk Pages, and Wiki Staff have asked me to call upon the post creators to fix the error. If you have recieved this message, it is because you are the creator of a post that now contains a broken link. You can find out where these broken links are here, as well as what to do about it. It would be greatly appreciated if you could remedy the situation. I apologize if this message appears impersonal, but it was to be recieved by multiple people. Thanks again. --FoxtrotZero 02:19, June 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Done.Bastian964 20:29, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Weapon Damage Talk Page
Since you asked in your edit summery, the reason there are so many headers is because the person who created the article is making so many arguments to keep it. He is apparenlty one of those people who think that they are right about something and everybody else is wrong. Or that is my guess from the all the posts he is making. Also he apparently tried to use a tempalte, to back up his "this is a ligit source argument", and messed up the whole formatting of the talk page. Your comment supproting deletion was in the right place below Spart's in the Delete heading. So that is the reason that the page is an eyesore and extremely hard to follow. I know we haven't had the best past, but I figured I'd at least answer your question. That is if you wanted it answered? Lancer1289 20:27, June 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * It was more spoken in frustration than any sort of question, but thank you for answering. Also I forgave you a long time ago, after seeing how much you actually were doing for the wiki. Speaking of that incident, do you want to delete the entire argument?Bastian964 20:31, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm all for it, I'll head over the CDN page and remove my comments. Lancer1289 20:32, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. I'll contact The Illusive Man, and FridgeRaider88 and see if we can just remove the whole section altogether. Lancer1289 20:34, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll contact Spart to see if we can remove my report to him from his talk archive, if you want that.Bastian964 20:41, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like that. Thanks. Lancer1289 20:49, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

That's done, now we just have to wait for their responses.Bastian964 21:00, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Movement
I noticed that you moved the page, but the thing I was wondering is if you moved it back because it didn't show up in the Forum:Watercooler index page? Becuase if it didn't then I think I might know why. Lancer1289 02:27, June 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I moved it back because it didn't actually become a forum page. It was simply a normal page with 'Forum:' tacted on at the beginning. I didn't check if it showed up in the index itself but it wasn't showing the standard "Forums: Index > Watercooler >" at the top. Bastian964 16:26, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I do indeed know the problem. The way forums get into those respective cateogries is via a tempalte that is auto loaded when a few forum topic is created. Adding that template will categorize it and place it on the Watercooler index page. Since I do know that was the problem, I'll move the article and attatch the necessary template. Lancer1289 16:29, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * There we go, template added and now it appears as a page on the Forum:Watercooler index page and is categorized appropiatly. Lancer1289 16:34, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Bastian964 17:06, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Lancer1289 17:07, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Users removing comments from their own talk page
To quote the Community Guidelines: "A user's page and Talk page belong to that user, and they have control over what goes on it. Direct communication with a user should be done by leaving a message on their Talk page."

Removing a comment to change the tone of a thread might be considered vandalism, but removing the entire contents certainly doesn't. It may not be in the best interests of "transparency" and "the public record" to remove conversations, but it's that user's prerogative. Now if it was some one else's talk page, then I'd agree with you. ;) Besides, if Lancer had a problem with it, he would've pointed it out with each new message he was leaving on the page there. Lancer may wish to clarify, but that's basically it. -- Dammej ( talk ) 17:24, July 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Does it not count as "Editing another user’s comments to... shut them up"?Bastian964 17:28, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is still perfectly fine to edit your own talk page, whether the comment is yours or not. Teugene 17:41, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure where it would fall, but in general I'd say "no". The user obviously got the message that Lancer was sending, as he edited the talk page to remove it. That message was to inform that user that they were violating some policy. By removing the comment, they may be removing the record that they were given the warning, I suppose, but I think the point still got across. Like I said, if they cherry picked one comment of many to remove, we'd be looking at a different situation. But since they removed the entire contents of the talk page (save for the welcome message, until the last one), I think we avoid the issue here. Is it shady and dishonest? Probably. But vandalism? I think that's reading the rules too closely. Admins in the past (by that I mean SpartHawg) have been very protective of people being able to do what they want (re: user pages), so long as they don't violate the rules. I guess Lancer could have a different interpretation, but they tend to have very similar philosophies. Plus, as I pointed out above... if the user was violating rules by removing comments, Lancer would have pointed it out in one of his many messages. I'm sure that either Lancer or SpartHawg would have a more coherent explanation here. -- Dammej ( talk ) 17:47, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * The things you miss when you step out for a few hours. Anyway I would have mentioned it, if it was vandalism. A user's talk page is their property, and unless they cross the line, you'd have to ask Spart for a better definition on that, a user is free to remove comments from their talk page, and either archive them, as Spart and myself have done, or just get rid of them altogether, as Tullis does. If it was vandalism, I would have mentioned it, but since it was his talk page, and I agree with Dammej here, that since he was removing the messages, I assume that he got it at least. The other example that Dammej mentioned, removing other users comments from user talk pages, happened on my own when a user, who apparently didn't like Spart giving his two cents on an issue that he brought up with me, removed Spart's comments from my talk page, which is considered vandalism. Now if that had happened, which it didn't, it would have been vandalism, but it wasn't. Lancer1289 19:14, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Sorry, I was confused. The community guidelines don't make it clear how much it being their property overrides people's right to not have their comments removed. Bastian964 00:50, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Section header
You cannot make the statement that all the Relays are destroyed if the Citadel survives, it is illogical. if you want to argue my views then do so, but don't pretend that what happens to the Relays is the same in Control as it in Destroy/Synthesis

Fine, watch this then. Forget my ending cinematic video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hgFy2qvFJg

I am not going to dispute they could be completely disabled though. But is not the fucking same as them torn apart. --Costin Razvan 08:49, April 16, 2012 (UTC)


 * Freeze the video right after the relay fires, you can see it floating apart. Bastian964 08:45, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

One second of it pausing and debris flying does not mean destruction. Damage yes, disabling them possibly, destroying them? No. If you want to claim they don't work anymore, go ahead I believe that is very much possible. --Costin Razvan 08:47, April 16, 2012 (UTC)


 * We have the Catalyst telling use it will be destroyed. We have it breaking into little pieces and flying apart. Guess, what? When something breaks into little pieces and someone else tells us it's destroyed, that means it's destroyed. I suggest you cease and desist your speculations (or at least your attempts to force your speculations onto this wiki). Thank you and have a good day. Bastian964 08:55, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

We see pieces falling off it and the rings stopping, not it breaking into pieces in Control. My argument rests on the Citadel mostly, how exactly do you claim ALL Relays are destroyed if the Citadel survives and does not fire that beam destroys it in Destroy/Synthesis? Care to explain that? Yours on the Catalyst, you are ignoring clear visual evidence and logic of what happens in the Cinematic though, so I won't stop. I am keeping my bias out of this cause I believe they are not even disabled, but it could be they are. --Costin Razvan 08:58, April 16, 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if "logic" tells you something else, when the game tells you something, that is what it is. Also, yes we do see it falling into piece, FREEZE FRAME it as I told you to do (in fact do so multiple time so you can see multiple frames). It doesn't matter that the Citadel wasn't destroyed, all the other relays were. You are completely and utterly failing to keep your bias out of this since you believe you can out "logic" what the game actually tells you. Bastian964

My bias? How about yours? When I started editing I made a point to be as objective as possible since the admins don't like speculation. I made a point to never say the Relays survive in Control and can start working again just fine. My bias is that they do survive fine, but it's not a certainty. The Certainty is that they don't explode to bloody pieces with the rings falling off. If the Admins disagree then they can remove my past edits, which they did not when I made them despite them looking over all of them --Costin Razvan 09:10, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so maybe it's not my place to say this, but could you and Costin Razvan please resolve your argument regarding the control ending on the forums or one of the relevant articles' talk pages, rather than having an edit war on the wiki proper? It's kind of annoying, and it doesn't prove either of you right. (Cross posted to both your user talk pages so it doesn't look like I'm playing favorites.) --FnordCola 09:02, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Let's settle this here, I had enough of this edit war. It doesn't matter what the Catalyst says about the Relays being destroyed if the Citadel is perfectly intact --Costin Razvan 09:13, April 16, 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I just rewatched the ending. The Catalyst specifically states that it will live (and thus the Citadel will) if you choose the control option. It says that you will control "us", not that you will control the Reapers. It later says that all the endings will destroy the mass relays, so clearly it considers its body as different. Bastian964 09:25, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly does the Catalyst state the Citadel will survive in Control? All it talks about is the Relays getting destroyed when you release the energy and the Cycle ending. Hell it doesn't mention the Citadel at all in any of it's dialogue except that the Citadel is part of itself. The Catalyst also says that the Citadel is not the Catalyst but a part of itself. You claim I am speculating, but you are interpreting it's statements. --Costin Razvan 09:27, April 16, 2012 (UTC)


 * Do I need to repost my comment verbatim so that you can read it again? I already stated the Catalyst specified that it will live and thus as a side effect, the Citadel will survive. Bastian964 09:29, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Here is what know as facts.

1: Citadel is a Relay that can shut down the entire Relay network. ( Vigil )

2: Citadel coordinates the entire Relay Network. ( Vendetta )

3: Citadel is destroyed in Destroy and Synthesis after firing the beam of the Crucible. Citadel does not fire this beam in Control and just closes up with Reapers around. The same beam that makes Charon explode in Destroy/Synthesis ( Cinematic )

4: Catalyst says the Relays will be destroyed by releasing the energy of the Crucible. Catalyst also says the Cycle will end. ( Dialogue )

5: Catalyst refers to the Citadel as part of itself and that it Controls the Reapers. ( Dialogue )

6: Catalyst dialogue about Control:

"Catalyst: Or you think you can Control us?" "Shepard: So, the Illusive Man was right after all." "Catalyst: Yes but he could have never taken Control because we already controlled him." "Shepard: But I can."

"Catalyst: You will die, you will control us but you will lose everything you have" "Shepard: But the Reapers will obey me?" "Catalyst: Yes"

Nowhere does it mention the Citadel surviving, that is your speculation, nowhere does it think the Citadel is a different type of Relay. --Costin Razvan 09:38, April 16, 2012 (UTC)


 * "you will control us", US, not the Reapers, us.Bastian964 09:39, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

It also refers to you destroying the Reapers in dialogue as: "I know you thought about destroying us." That's referring to the Reapers. You are speculating. If you want to talk about plotholes, then yes the Citadel surviving is a plothole and contradiction, what the isn't the goddamn vague endings we get? --Costin Razvan 09:43, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Also the Catalyst says this exact line: "Perhaps. I control the Reapers." --Costin Razvan 09:45, April 16, 2012 (UTC)