User talk:SpartHawg948

I hate the way images look when added to talk pages. They mess with the flow of the page, and generally look just plain unsightly. As such, I ask that editors please not post images on my talk page. If you have an image that supports your point, feel free to provide a link to that image, but please don't add the image itself. From this point on, any such posts will be summarily removed as soon as they are noticed, with no warning or explanation.

Cthulhu validity
Here's a quote from one of the cultists in "Call of Cthulhu":


 * "They were not composed altogether of flesh and blood. They had shape [...] but that shape was not made of matter. When the stars were right, They could plunge from world to world through the sky; but when the stars were wrong, They could not live. But although They no longer lived, They would never really die. They all lay in stone houses in Their great city of R'lyeh, preserved by the spells of mighty Cthulhu for a glorious resurrection when the stars and the earth might once more be ready for Them."


 * I have to say I can't see how this quote proves anything about how that function connects them to the Reapers. Even if it did it is a huge stretch. Lancer1289 20:07, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Sovereign's role was to manipulate entities into reawakening the hibernating Reapers at the edge of the galaxy. Likewise, Cthulhu had to manipulate humans into raising R'lyeh and subsequently awakening his brethren from their hibernation. This series is rife with inspiration from Lovecraft. Heck, another connection to the series in that very quote is "When the stars were right, They could plunge from world to world through the sky". -- Shoggoth1890 20:15, January 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict - If you want to talk to Lancer, please do it on his talk page or yours, not mine) But that quote was contradicted in later works, was it not? For example, in The Dunwich Horror, it is stated that Cthulu is not one of the Old Ones, as was stated in the work you quote, but rather that "Great Cthulhu is Their cousin, yet can he spy Them only dimly". In other works, Cthulu's spawn are described actively fighting against the Old Ones in R'lyeh. Lovecraft's mythos is so convoluted and contradictory that statements like what you are adding really only apply if you selectively pick and choose bits of the mythos. If you take it in its entirety, they cease to have relevance. SpartHawg948 20:18, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * As for the "plunge from world to world through the sky" bit, I do have to call that one a real stretch. Not just a stretch, but a s-s-s-t-t-t-r-r-r-e-e-e-c-c-c-h-h-h. It has literally as much to do with Mass Effect as it does with any other sci-fi series employing FTL technology. FTL in Mass Effect has nothing whatsoever to do with the stars being right. That leaves plunging from world to world through the sky, which could refer to pretty much any sci-fi franchise. If I had to pick any sci-fi series/franchise that the quote about stars and plunging from world to world most closely resembled, it'd be Stargate, where the people actually literally go from world to world, instead of most series (like Mass Effect) where they go from star system to star system or cluster to cluster, and in which the positions of stars does have a definite impact on travel. SpartHawg948 21:17, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, posted there because I was trying to avoid cross-page talk. If it weren't for the sheer abundance of Lovecraft influence I'd agree that the between worlds bit was a stretch, so I was reticent about mentioning it. Inconsistencies in specifics of a franchise(not really a franchise I know) are not grounds to exclude any mention of said franchise. The unified canon is what matters. Star Wars is filled with inconsistencies, but it does not invalidate someone that mentions the accepted canon. Retcon sucks, yes, but it happens. -- Shoggoth1890 21:43, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * But in this case, since the source I provided comes after the source you provided, wouldn't that invalidate your position? I mean, the "ret" in retcon does stand for retroactive. That's the whole point of retcon. Material released more recently (such as The Dunwich Horror, which states that Cthulu is not one of the Old Ones) invalidating the older material (which you cite), becoming the new canon? As for a sheer abundance of Lovecraft influence, I can honestly say I haven't seen any abundance. Maybe one or two isolated bits and pieces, but certainly no more than the influences we see of other authors, such as Heinlein. SpartHawg948 22:02, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

No, the second example provides the conflict, but the retcon is from going back to explain away said conflict. The Dunwich Horror example, however, is referring to the type of being that Yog-Sothoth and Shub-Niggurath are. "Old Ones" are different than "Great Old Ones", source of much confusion for me initially as well. -- Shoggoth1890 22:15, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * But in Lovecraft's work, Yog-Sothoth and Shub-Niggurath are "Other Gods", not Old Ones. SpartHawg948 22:25, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

They are both. As stated previously, those were generic terms which to describe ancient entities, capitalized to emphasize the gravity of their being, and no more invalidates it than stating that the Ancients(Greeks) worshipped Zeus while the Ancients(Egyptians) worshipped Ra. The names being turned into proper names happened later, with "Old Ones" remaining ambiguous references to various races while "Great Old Ones" became a proper name for a particular race. -- Shoggoth1890 22:56, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I've seen literally nothing to support that contention. And your example would seem to further invalidate it. Zeus and Ra are two totally different deities, from two totally different pantheons. The Macedonians (generally considered quite distinct from the Ancient Greeks) did begin to associate the two gods during the reign of Alexander, but for the most part, Zeus and Ra are totally distinct. I'm telling you what I've seen and read, and this simply does not substantiate the claims you are making. The Other Gods such as Yog-Sothoth and Shub-Niggurath are vastly different from Cthulu and its ilk, and as such, the claim that "Great Cthulhu is Their cousin" really doesn't add up. On the other hand, it would make sense if referring to the Great Old Ones, who are fairly similar to Cthulu. This one seems to be coming down more to personal interpretations of vague and ill-defined literature, which does not make for good trivia. To be quite honest, I've long been of the opinion that the entire "Sovereign is similar to Cthulu" trivia item is bogus, but this seems even more so. SpartHawg948 23:23, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

You completely missed my point. Using a carpet term like Old Ones or Ancients means you cannot use them to refer to a specific people. The Greek being different from the Egyptians was exactly the point I was making, it was an analogy. -- Shoggoth1890 23:33, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not following that analogy. You may want to clarify that one, or maybe not. I did make some other points though that were not addressed in your reply. I would very much like to see a response to them. SpartHawg948 23:40, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Old Ones was only capitalized to add gravitas to the phrase, as evidenced in its consistency in use for several types of beings. Consider instead old ones. Literally the ones that are old, i.e. ancients. I honestly do not know how to simplify the analogy more. -- Shoggoth1890 23:49, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * So that's a no, then, on addressing the rest of my post? I don't even know why I bother asking sometimes. It seems like too many people these days listen to Robert McNamara, and answer the question they wish they'd been asked, instead of the question they were actually asked. SpartHawg948 00:34, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are getting stuck and repeating yourself when I have made a valid point and I am sure you feel the same about me. Such is the way of man. Let's address one point at a time and not move on until it is addressed. In the post above this, what is one of the points you say I did not address? -- Shoggoth1890 04:35, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * The contention, made several times, that this issue is largely subjective, depending on ones own interpretation of the rather convoluted and contradictory mythos Lovecraft concocted. SpartHawg948 04:39, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Would you agree with the statement that, "when in doubt, refer to 'The Call of Cthulhu'", since it is 1.) From the creator of the character and 2.) Contains the most information on the character from said source? -- Shoggoth1890 04:49, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really. What we have here is a multi-volume series, with works by the original author and his (more or less) chosen successor. We also find contradictory elements within the works written solely by the original author. As I reply when asked similar questions dealing strictly with Mass Effect issues, it is not up to us to determine which items from different works in the series are more or less canon. We merely have to make the best of what we're given until the relevant authorities choose to make their views known, though I must confess I have no clue who the relevant authorities are in regards to the Cthulhu (spelled with two H's just for you!) mythos. Perhaps the estates of Mr. Lovecraft and/or Derleth, or possibly Arkham House? Please don't think I'm just trying to be contrarian here. As stated above, I take a nearly identical stance with canon issues and inconsistencies within the Mass Effect universe. SpartHawg948 04:58, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I appreciate the peace offering of the H. I've admittedly had issues with Derleth ever since being duped into buying his "posthumous collaborations" when I was first getting into Lovecraft. He did help bring HPL to the public, so it's a one-sided love-hate relationship between him and I. Would you agree with the more generalized statement(not referring to the Cthulu Mythos this time) that when there is a dispute in the canon of something, source material should be referenced? -- Shoggoth1890 05:10, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes... to an extent. (Don't want to talk myself into a corner here - referring to general site policies, not to this discussion in particular.) I do think that, for disputes of the nature you describe, source material certainly should be referenced. The only issue I have with this is with referencing canon sources in the disputed article. I don't think that is always necessary, so long as the source is provided, preferably on a talk page. The reason I make this equivocation is because we've had issues before with people citing sources (particularly the three Mass Effect novels) for every tiny little detail, and in a fictional universe, that leads to a whole lot of citations at the bottom of the page. SpartHawg948 05:20, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Do not worry, I'm not playing the "gotcha!" game. I always view slight concessions as a good sign and thus try to avoid discouraging them, and try to make sure I make them as well. Is the primary issue then that I did not cite "The Call of Cthulhu"? I am admittedly new to editing wikis, and have not learned all of the proper etiquette (couldn't find the 3 revert rule Lancer mentioned, is it an unspoken rule or did I look at the wrong page?) -- 71.74.72.212 05:43, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not worried about you playing "gotcha!" or anything. It's more about making sure I don't get myself into trouble later. I'm big on precedent and all that when making decisions, and it's never fun when someone doesn't like something I did and responds with 'but on your talk page, you said "___"', so I'm just trying to cover all my bases, playing "CYA". I can't really speak for what Lancer's issue was, though mine was more an issue of accuracy, compliance with site policy, and perhaps relevance.
 * Now, as to the "three-revert rule", I suppose we could clarify that some. There is actually nothing explicitly defining the three-revert rule or its use by the site admins. There is an item in the Community Guidelines which names "edit warring" as grounds for banning, and the admins use the "three revert rule" which is used by the folks at Wikipedia as the basis for determining what is and isn't an edit war. I suppose the Guidelines could use some clarification. I'll get right on it! :) SpartHawg948 05:55, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough I feel placated despite our still extant disagreement. I do agree with you that the specifics of the article could be refined, but enough of a connection exists that it seems extreme to deny them entirely, so much so that it came off sounding like you were threatening to take away something as punishment. I apologize if that was incorrectly interpreted. Perhaps a mention that it is incredibly similar to the nature of Cthulhu as described in 'The Call of Cthulhu', as it seems we both agree that particular story does match, and the contention arises from continuity thereafter? -- Shoggoth1890 06:34, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I do, as I've stated several times, feel that there is a decent case to be made for a connection between the Reapers as a whole and Cthulhu, since when talking about the Reapers as a whole we can factor in the Derelict Reaper. And frankly, the only way someone can deny the Cthulhu references in that case is if the person in question is either ignorant or just denying it out of spite. As such, I am perfectly happy keeping the Cthulhu trivia on the Reaper page. However, I just don't think that a valid case has been made as far as Sovereign and Cthulu. I still stand by my comments on the Sovereign talk page. A much better case needs to be made to keep that item. This is not me being contrary, or attempting to punish. I simply, after examining the issue more closely, don't see the merit of the trivia linking Sovereign to Cthulhu. 80% of it is just plain false. SpartHawg948 07:14, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

First the image issue: While true that the original editor's claim that they are "the same" is inaccurate, that does not mean there is no connection at all. Would you agree that the cephalopodic feature of Cthulhu is regarded as his most defining and most referenced physical characteristic, as opposed to the man-like and dragon-like elements? -- Shoggoth1890 03:57, January 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. That said, it needs to be pointed out that Cthulhu was said to be reminiscent of an octopus. Sovereign clearly is not. It must also be pointed out that simple comparisons based on visuals or appearance are, per site policy, not grounds for valid trivia. SpartHawg948 05:46, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

first i'd like to say thank you for welcoming me to the forums. second, i'd really love to join this discussion if its not unwelcome. as a fan of both series and a person who analyzes things way too much, i feel i have things to add, or perhaps a third side to this debate. i think in terms of the role he plays in the scheme of things (to awaken or call others of his kind, or relatively his kind. the fact that for some reason he needs to influence humans to try to bring this about), there's quite a bit of relation between cthulhu and sovereign in specific, not the entirety of reapers. as far as appearance... although i disagree that sovereign doesn't look somewhat like a mechanical squid or octopus, and cthulhu has also been discribed with a squid like head, not just like an octopus, i still say it doesn't work as well as other points of comparison. maybe if what makes up sovereign's being were mounted on a body as a head i could see more relation, as far as old ones, i believe the term was used as an unspecific term to beings that are old, capitalized because they were of great power and importance. it is used for cthulu, those referred to as great old ones, outer gods, elder gods, and elder things, etc. as far as cthulhu not being an old one, i think in many ways, the statement was a way of saying he was the of the same type, yet something was different about him. perhaps he was different for being younger for all i know, but he cant just plain be a different thing all together. i have always thought that most of what divides the great old ones from the outer gods is a simple matter of their power and limitations. in fact cthulhu is stated to be born from nub/nagoob, one of the twin blasphemies, who are children of yog-sothoth and shub-niggurath. so in a way, this part of the debate boils down to how closely related he is to his grandparents, he is related, and to some extant must be the same creature or species. and about the quote "they could plunge from world to world through the sky" i can see how that could relate most to reapers than most works of science fiction by far. the reason i say that is because if you take for instance stargate, they need the gates and dont technically go through the sky, with most other science fiction there is some craft like object doing the traveling for them, they dont traverse space under there own power and descend upon worlds to reap udder destruction like the reapers and creatures of the cthulhu mythos. going further with the passage, the association of the stars being right holds much more connection in my mind with an idea of cycles and ages like the repeated wiping out of civilizations done by the reapers than it connects to say the calculation of orbits and such that would be required with the gates of stargate. i also see a big correlation in how they assert their control on humans, the indoctrination being in a way a reduced version of both the dream manipulation great old ones use and the insanity caused by cthulhu rising. plus the idea that both have been through many incarnations of civilization is a tie. sorry for intruding in the conversation if my post is viewed as such and sorry for it being so long. lol i came just to leave a message to say thank you for the welcome but i got to your talk page and got intellectually inspired. :)Wilkisama 15:37, January 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * I never said Sovereign doesn't look like some sort of mechanical cephalopod. On the contrary, it looks strikingly like a mechanical cuttlefish. On the other hand, I've never seen Cthulhu depicted with cuttlefish-like features, only with those of an octopus, and octopi and cuttlefish look quite different, do they not?
 * And I do feel the need to point out that in Stargate, they do go through the sky. We see it in pretty much every episode and motion picture. The stargates function by opening a stable wormhole between two points, and the person moving between them is transmitted as matter from one to the other, passing rapidly through the intervening area of interstellar (and sometimes intergalactic) space. This is represented in the shows and movies as the onrushing wormhole, with stars visible rushing by outside. As for your other objections to the stargate analogy, it wasn't an exact comparison, it was an analogy. In order to disprove it, you would have to demonstrate how the quote in question better describes the modes of travel used by Reapers and by the races of Mass Effect in general than it does other sci-fi series. SpartHawg948 20:47, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

No worries Sama, input can only add to a discussion, never take away. Spart: although appearance alone is not worth mentioning as trivia, when coupled with other points that solidify it's connection to the central plot of a game series, it is. Going on a point-by-point basis right now since we kept getting bogged down in cluttered arguments. Although octopus is used as a descriptor, it is clear from the sketch of Cthulhu that Lovecraft did in one of his correspondences that he did not specifically mean an octopus but a cephalopod in general. Technically, the Reapers are not described as resembling squids either, but rather cuttlefish. I will move on to the next point if you are satisfied with this leg of the conversation. -- Shoggoth1890 19:06, January 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully understand that, when coupled with other points, appearance becomes a viable support for a piece of trivia. I really don't need it to be explained to me. Funny thing is, when you helped write all the rules, you tend to understand them pretty well. Now, you contend that Lovecraft did not specifically mean that Cthulhu resembled an octopus, but rather a cephalopod in general. Why then did Lovecraft himself liken Cthulhu specifically to an octopus? I find it odd that you go from holding up what Lovecraft said in Call of Cthulhu is the canon of canons (as you argued earlier while discussing the matter that originally spawned this discussion) to arguing that what Lovecraft said in Call of Cthulhu isn't really what he meant. Additionally, I am well aware that Reapers look more like cuttlefish than squid. In fact, it's well known to me, and has been for some time, that Reapers look very much like Reaper Cuttlefish. So like a Reaper Cuttlefish that we've had to remove "trivia" several times that they were created using Reaper Cuttlefish (thanks to the bit in ME2 where EDI hypothesizes that Reapers take on the form of the race used to create them). If you're satisfied with this part of the conversation, I am. SpartHawg948 20:47, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Please, don't use gotcha tactics. I have not mentioned the moments I noticed of yours, and the one you mention is not a contradiction, since Lovecraft was using similarities to an octopus as a way to describe this utterly alien being; not that he literally had an octopus on his head. Later on in the story, he is indeed described using the word squid. I'm sure you'll agree that although he was also described as "man-like", it was only describing his general anthropoid features and could have easily been referred to as any primate-like. Is it sheer coincidence that the Derelict Reaper that we both identify as a Cthulhu reference is in the shape of a cephalopod? That alone should show that the designers draw the association of which I speak. -- Shoggoth1890 21:19, January 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not using gotcha tactics. I didn't realize that what I could and couldn't say on my own talk page was your purview. (Though perhaps when you answered the query from another user about taking part in a discussion on my talk page, that should have been a hint...) I also didn't realize that pointing out contradictions in your position (as it is a contradiction) was inappropriate. Now you are interpreting what Lovecraft did and didn't mean. Of course he didn't literally have an octopus for a head. Not once have I voiced such a ludicrous statement. He did have an octopus-like head though, and as I've repeatedly pointed out, octopi and cuttlefish look extremely dissimilar. Now, you go on to make assumptions about my own opinion on the Derelict Reaper. My identification of the Derelict Reaper with the Cthulhu mythos has nothing to do with the shape of the vessel, and everything to do with the line about dead gods dreaming. It seems entirely likely that the developers saw a picture of a Reaper Cuttlefish, and designed the Reapers to resemble the Reaper Cuttlefish. Were this the case, it would explain why the Reapers have the same name and nearly identical appearance as the aforementioned cuttlefish, and would do so completely without Cthulhu. Now, about that moving on... SpartHawg948 21:29, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

I've not ditctated what you could and could not say, I politely asked. It was not intended to sound feign. I was hoping for mutual respect and was simply pointing out an area that seemed disrespectful to me. Please do the same if you feel I am disrespecting you. I gave brief mention to another poster as not to be rude and completely ignore him. -- Lovecraft used the phrase "octopus-like" to describe Cthulhu, and he also used the phrase "squid-head". These do not conflict with each other because he is conveying that Cthulhu possessed generic cephalopodic traits. -- I never claimed you were making the association between the shape, I was asking you if the shape was a coincidence to the "dead god dreaming". Although the Reaper design appears specifically based on the reaper cuttlefish, the question I am asking is why of all the possible creatures that exist did they choose a cuttlefish? -- Shoggoth1890 22:53, January 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * Simple. They were mulling over the name "Reaper", someone knew about or heard of the Reaper Cuttlefish, they looked at an image of the cuttlefish, and liked what they saw. It's a strange and foreign looking creature, and the shape does make for a good spacecraft. It's entirely plausible to surmise that at no point in the creation of Sovereign did Cthulhu come up. Now, I can only give you my word that at no point was disrespect intended, I was merely asking what seemed to me to be a reasonable question. On the other hand, addressing a query from another user concerning acceptable content on my user page, and accusing me of using "gotcha tactics" did strike me as disrespectful. I understand that you were attempting to be polite using euphemisms (though in truth, input can and often does detract from conversations, as I've seen all too often around here), but it would be appreciated if you could refrain from doing so when another user asks about the appropriateness of joining an ongoing conversation on my talk page. Had the user left the same message on your talk page, I'd have deferred to you in that respect. Seriously though, I thought we were moving on several posts ago. This thread is becoming quite lengthy, so I'd like to keep it moving, or stop it altogether, as clearly neither of us is making headway with the other as far as appearance goes. SpartHawg948 23:54, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

My comment was not in regard to your talk page but rather to discussions in general; about how nothing added to a discussion(correct or incorrect) can ever delete something previously said. I will assure you as well I meant no disrespect. I have just realized the phrase to best sum up my description of the imagery connection is "visual allusion". On to the next point though, as you suggest. -- I originally agreed with you that Sovereign was not described as "virtually indestructible", but then I read his codex entry in ME2 again, and it says just that. -- Shoggoth1890 00:51, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes it does. The very same sentence also says that Sovereign is a warship crewed by krogan and geth. Nothing more, nothing less. A dreadnought. It is common knowledge that the Codex entries for Sovereign, the Reapers as a whole, and certain other topics such as the rachni are woefully incorrect, representing the commonly held in-universe opinions of the Citadel. However, the same entry also notes that the "virtually indestructable" Sovereign was stopped, though it fails to mention the fact that this was as a result of Sovereign's destruction. SpartHawg948 00:55, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Since whether or not a being is indestructible is only certain upon death of the subject, it is unknown that anything reportedly so truly is. This applies to Cthulhu as well. This makes the relevant information the 'claim' that something is virtually indestructible. Virtual indestructibility is unable to even be proven upon the death of an entity, since it never claims something to be truly indestructible. Thought this point was going to be able to be quickly passed to the next one. -- Shoggoth1890 01:57, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * There is, however, one thing that can prove or disprove virtual indestructibility. Destroying the person or thing in question. Regardless, we seem to have gotten off track here. Having gone back and reviewed the issue, the matter of indestructibility, presumed, virtual, or otherwise, is moot. The issue raised was whether or not Sovereign was "presumably near-invincible". It was not. At no point, not even in the hyperbolic and propagandized ME2 Codex entry on Sovereign, is it claimed or presumed that Sovereign was nearly invincible. As this is the case, and as Sovereign is demonstrably destructible, this point seems pretty open and shut. SpartHawg948 02:05, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Destruction of something cannot determine if something was 'virtually' indestructible, only the history of attempts to destroy it can. The codex entry clearly states what was rumor and what was not. It states that the crew of krogan and geth were Saren's, not that they piloted Sovereign(sorry if misinterpreting the point of mentioning this). -- Shoggoth1890 02:22, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh... didn't I just point out that the virtually indestructible bit was moot, as it was you who just now introduced it to the argument despite the fact that no such thing had been discussed prior to a couple of hours ago? However, just for S&Gs, let's look at the history of attempts to destroy Sovereign. Depending on how you slice it, we really have either two or possibly three known attempts to destroy Sovereign. The Citadel fleet tries, and fails. It should be noted that this was due, at least in part, to the presence of a strong geth fleet which obstructed the Citadel fleet, and as such does not accurately reflect the ability of the Citadel fleet to take down the Reaper. Next, we have the Alliance attempt, with an Alliance fleet (which was smaller and less formidable than the Citadel fleet) working in conjunction with Shepard and company to take it down. This effort succeeded. Now, depending on whether you consider the later as one or two attempts, we have either a 50% or 33% success rate. Hardly "virtually" indestructible.
 * As for the Codex, it does specify that Saren has an "indestructible flagship and a crew of fanatic geth and krogan". Given that the two are linked thus, and the krogan and geth are described as a "crew" and not, say, an army, the implication would be that the geth and krogan were the one presumably operating the ship, would it not? This is further reinforced by repeated claims made in ME2, most notably by the Council, that Sovereign was a geth vessel. The point of mentioning this was that the ME2 Codex entry on Saren, generally regarded as canon but inaccurate (representing, as it does, the misguided beliefs of some members of the galactic community) is hardly a reputable source upon which to base an argument. Now... was there anything else? This thread is getting quite long, yet we've only touched (inconclusively, I might add) upon two points out of five. SpartHawg948 02:39, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * It also just occurred to me the irony (and this is meant ironically, with no malice aforethought) of the earlier claim that I was secretly Cthulhu, sent to drive you mad. Methinks the roles have been reversed. Tedious does not begin to describe this thread of late... :{ SpartHawg948 02:41, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

No offense taken at that. I meant mine jokingly as well, and figured you were as frustrated as I. We're both passionate about the subject and it shows. In a nautical sense, crew is a term that refers to any personnel of a ship, including guards or (jet)pilots that never touch a ship's controls. I'll give you were getting nit picky on that there. If you want to move on to the next point, we shall. -- Shoggoth1890 03:07, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Being a member of the armed forces, I am of course well aware of all the implications of the word crew. It can be used to define personnel stationed on a ship who don't operate a ships controls, but of course this is not the common definition. As you say, it's an extremely nit-picky definition. I don't want to move on to the next point, fearing it will be both as lengthy and as unproductive as the previous two, but if you wish to move on, then let's move on. SpartHawg948 03:28, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Crap, I was in too much of a rush and forgot to even address the issues in your other post. Sovereign claims the cycle of destruction has continued since time immemorial, with only a single dead Reaper ever discovered. Since it's safe to assume that most the civilizations fought back rather than accept their destruction, it's a pretty strong track record. My forehead is getting bruised, so I'll shorten the remainder -- Shoggoth1890 03:57, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sovereign explicitly states that his nature is beyond our understanding
 * Codex states that eventually the indoctrinated loose their mental faculties
 * A question: if you don't accept what the codex says, how are you determining anything about the universe? Conversations with people in-game are even more subject to bias and rumor than the codex.  Firsthand experiences are not enough to cover even half the content here, and can be deceiving.
 * Yeah. The problem there is that you're working off assumptions, and I'm working off observations. One of my foremost rules is "There is no such thing as a safe assumption". If we look at known fact, we see that of the four Reapers directly encountered by Shepard and crew (Sovereign, Harbinger, the Derelict Reaper, and the Human-Reaper), one is already dead (for all intents and purposes, though some systems are apparently still functional), and two are destroyed in short order. So, operating off facts, not assumptions, Reapers would appear not insanely difficult to kill. Granted, they do seem to do ok with the cycles of extinction, but much of that can be attributed to the massive first strike they inflict, and to their deactivation of the mass relays, isolating their targets and allowing them to wither on the vine, akin to Alliance military doctrine. When deprived of these advantages, they become much less formidable. Now, to the other points:
 * Sovereign explicitly states that the goals of the Reapers, and the reasons for their cycle of extinction, are beyond human understanding. It (and please, I started spelling Cthulhu with an H, can you return the favor by not calling Sovereign, a machine-organic hybrid of indeterminate gender, or possibly no gender at all, a "he"?) never states that it is beyond human understanding.
 * The Codex does not state that the victims of indoctrination go mad though, does it? In fact, Vigil specifies what happens to them when it mentions that the Reapers indoctrinated pawns, left behind when the Reapers left, essentially ceased to function. Bereft of the Reapers commands and suggestions, they simply... stopped, and eventually died from thirst, starvation, exposure, etc. Again, we have seen no evidence of people being driven mad, and it should also be pointed out that, contrary to what the "Sovereign-Cthulhu" trivia blurb asserted, even if they had, it would not be from the mere presence of the Reapers, but rather from the process of Indoctrination, which is a purposeful act undertaken by the Reapers. This is a far cry from the mere presence of the Reapers causing madness, as was suggested.
 * As for the Codex, when did I ever say that I (or this wiki) do not accept what the Codex says? Ever? Even once? I can't recall any such statement. In all but a very few, and very obvious, cases, the Codex is deemed the best source for information. However, due to the in-universe bias inherent in the Codex, a few entries (particularly the entries about Sovereign and the Reapers) are considered exceptions to this rule, as we see for ourselves that these entries are not true, but rather are a reflection of the ignorance of their authors on the subject matter. Of course dialogue from characters is generally unreliable, which is why we treat it as such. However, the Codex itself is pretty darn unreliable too. Just look at the entries on Sovereign and the Reapers if you don't believe me. SpartHawg948 04:12, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum - In the interests of full disclosure and accuracy, I did go back and redo talking to Sovereign. It turns out that it does state that it is beyond Commander Shepard's comprehension. That said, I must point out that, as we now know, this claim is false, and I'm far from convinced that a megalomaniacal claim that we know to be false is akin to truly being beyond comprehension, as Cthulhu apparently is. That said, I will admit that only 60% of the trivia I removed was bogus. There was merit to a whopping 40%. Still doesn't seem like enough to me. SpartHawg948 04:48, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I give up. I simply cannot say anything you consider logical, and it is too frustrating. Not responding to any topics about this here or externally. Parts of the debate were interesting, so thank you. I bid my adieu now -- Shoggoth1890 05:40, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger that. I feel much the same way, if it makes you feel any better. And know that I bear you absolutely no ill will or any of that other nasty stuff. There may have been a few misunderstandings along the way, but we worked through them (most of the credit for that, by the way, belongs to you, the person willing to make the first conciliatory gesture, which you certainly have my respect for), and as far as I'm concerned, any unpleasantness between us is water under the bridge. SpartHawg948 05:43, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Awaiting your green-light
A couple articles I want to create:


 * Urdnot Camp - a visitable location in ME2 that somehow never got an article. This would be formatted like Nos Astra and other location articles.


 * Virtual Alien - from the Cerberus Daily News storyline. I've had an article ready-made for months now in my sandbox. I was waiting to get the aliens' actual name for themselves, but since the CDN ends tomorrow such a revelation is unlikely. If we ever do learn their name, we can move the article and make the necessary revisions to the text.

This alright with you? -- Commdor (Talk) 21:52, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and a category for homeworlds. I figure that might be useful. -- Commdor (Talk) 21:55, January 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again: Bless you, Commdor! You have no idea how nice it is to get a message on my talk page that doesn't have to do with this Cthulhu nonsense. Honestly, you'd think that I had desecrated H. P. Lovecraft's corpse or something based on the arguments. This despite the fact that I actually agree with them on some points. But I'm seriously digressing now...


 * Both those ideas sound great! You're right on both counts... I can't really see how the Udrnot camp was missed, and we're likely not getting the virtual aliens' names any time soon. Hopefully towards the end of the year though, when a certain game is released... Anywho, consider both your articles green-lighted! :) SpartHawg948 21:57, January 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and your accursed edit-conflicting homeworld category sounds like a decent idea too. I'm not quite as keen on that one, but I also don't see any real reason not to. SpartHawg948 21:57, January 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll get started on them. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:02, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

"Mass Effect Wiki -- at the top!"
That is the caption for Sannse's newest blog about how Wikia is finally fully up to date with the new MediaWiki software. There are a few things that are interesting, mainly with one about Wikia images now will be showing up in Google and other search engines more, meaning more of the pics here will get seen, but what I thought I'd share was the pic. A Google search of everyone's favorite krogan. Figured I'd share what I found, I know technical details may not be interesting, but I'm sure the pic, and caption, would be interesting to share. Lancer1289 01:58, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

One blog that just doesn't get a break
Hey Spart, first how's the new job going? Unless I'm misinterpreting your comment, then you are high up in the chain, head of security?

Anyway something keeps bugging me, it's User blog:Pepoluan/Russian version of "Explanations and Excuses" is available!. There have been more instances of vandalism on it today, five as of right now, and all of the same type. Frankly, I feel it has gone on long enough. I'm thinking of upping the bans for the vandalism to a year, maybe perma, since this hasn't stopped. I've even though about deleting the blog to stop it or asking Pepoluan to take it down. I know that is going way beyond what we can do, but I'm starting to get really annoyed with this. So I'm looking for your opinion on this as well. Lancer1289 20:48, January 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * You could always ask Pepoluan to turn off commenting for that particular blog. On the editing screen, there's a check box at the top for the blog's creator to enable/disable comments. -- Commdor (Talk) 20:55, January 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's head of security for a branch. As for my opinion, I think Commdor's suggestion says about right. See if Pepoluan wants to turn off commenting. Upping the ban won't stop this from happening, unfortunately. SpartHawg948 05:11, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already dropped him a message after it happened for the fifth time today, so I'm hoping that he will reply quickly. Lancer1289 05:25, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing you couldn't see the last comment to delete it? That does seem to be an issue with some blogs with comments not showing up, especially ones that need to be deleted like that. Maybe you can answer a puzzle that I've had on my mind lately. Why do people constantly vandalize the same forum, blog, or page time after time after time? To me it just doesn’t make any sense to me so maybe you can grant some light on it. My theory is that it is just one person and a group of friends that vandalize the same pages to try and annoy the people that maintain the sites. Lancer1289 06:23, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea whether or not I could see the last comment to delete it. I was watching the NHL All-Star Draft when it was posted. By the time I refreshed the page to see what had been going on, it had already been posted and deleted. As for why, I have no special insight into the matter. It's more than likely one person or a group of people, but of course that is the "who", not the "why". SpartHawg948 06:32, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I guess that some people can only have fun at other people's expense, having run across quite a few of them. I guess we'll just have to roll with the punches on this one, again. Lancer1289 06:42, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Speculation Policy
Since this came up in a recent discussion, I believe there needs to be a change to the current speculation policy given actions we have done in the past. We do revert speculation in articles whenever it shows up so there is a current problem with the policy and our actions. The main issue brought up in the discussion was the policy says, It is clearly marked as being speculation, either under a “speculation” heading or with the sentence “some speculate that—” at the beginning of the paragraph. We have had instances of that in the past where it has gotten reverted and we do revert it on a regular basis. I think we do need to change that policy to say that we don't allow speculation except when it does have a reliable source. Or not at all, which would be more consistent with past actions on the site. Your thoughts on this? Lancer1289 18:56, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * First, I've been quiet on the issue thus far, but I don't think it's speculation to say that we see a female turian in Evolution. It seems blatantly obvious to me. As for the speculation policy, I think that the item you quote is fine to stay. After all, we use that bit all the time in article trivia sections when speculating as to possible references (as every mention of a possible reference is speculation, with only devconfirmed references being fact). I see no reason whatsoever to remove it. SpartHawg948 04:23, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

AudioBox Template
I've finished the AudioBox Template and yay/nay voting is open. I'd like your input, please. --Swooshy 23:05, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I promise that you'll have my input, but it won't be today. I'm at the point where I'm so tired that remaining still while I type this is hard, and amidst this weaving to and fro, I'm pretty sure that at least two or three of the things I'm seeing in front of me right now aren't really there. So I'm going to collapse onto my bed, then tomorrow, after I take care of some worky-work type training nonsense that will let me do bad things to bad people, I'll pop on over and take a looksee, and offer my opinion. I'm looking forward to seeing it, just not right now. SpartHawg948 08:54, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one that gets schizophrenic when missing sleep. Anyway, take your time, there's no rush. --Swooshy 12:56, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Protection
Hey Spart, I have a quick question for you. Given the recent spree of vandalism on the Forum:Index, Commdor approached me on semi-protecting it. Given the page is only edited very, very infrequently; I really don't see a problem putting protection on it. I know that we protect articles very infrequently, but given the massive amount of vandalism recently, six times in the last three days, and the fact that the page is only really supposed to be edited very infrequently, I really don't see a problem with protecting it. Lancer1289 01:13, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really see any reason to protect it. Five times in three days? Six times in four days? I've seen much, much worse without ever resorting to protecting pages. Protecting the page is an outright admission that the vandal has won, forcing us to resort to a last-ditch option that is extremely rarely used. I honestly just don't see the need to protect because of one bored individual, which is all this appears to be. SpartHawg948 01:57, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well when you put it that way, it does shine a different light on it. Lancer1289 01:58, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Pay no attention to my name, it was a mistake.

Just wondering, isn't it only fair that we mention Halo's High Charity on Omega? They ARE similar.
 * See Talk:Omega. I can't see what fairness has to do with it. Omega is similar to many, many space stations in sci-fi, not just High Charity. SpartHawg948 10:24, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Research Page
Since this happened before the disastrous Series page, I thought I'd inform you about another page that I plan on implementing. The page Forum:Research Page is a planned page for a Research article. To summarize the page, it will consolidate the various research projects that are spread all over the wiki across nine pages. Currently Research redirects to the Upgrade Guide, and while that does list all of the places where you can get the upgrades, it doesn't list what they are. Also I can't remember where the discussion was, but there was a suggestion for a proper research page consolidating the information. So your thoughts an opinions are of course welcome, but I do plan on moving this forward with this tomorrow or Friday at the latest. Lancer1289 18:26, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Spart, just another quick note about this. I plan on making the article and doing some cutting down in the articles I mentioned, which I just realized I failed to mention in my original message. What I do plan to cut is also linked in the forum page above. I plan to go through with this tonight about 10pm CST so if you could just give it a once over to avoid the incident I mentioned above. Lancer1289 14:59, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup. Gave it a once-over a while back, and saw no pressing need to comment. SpartHawg948 20:39, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

ralok
I understand that you've blocked someone by the name of "ralok" from ME Wiki - I'm sure you remember him. I understand why you did as I've read the "commentary" that lead to it, and I'm not here to justify what he said, but I'd just like to the duration of the block. I'm an administrator at Dead Space Wiki, where he has recently become a regular, and the first thing he did was tell me that he was blocked here and why. He also seems to really regret what he said to you, as whenever he mentioned you he made sure he clarified the context of anything that could be percieved as insulting or hateful. He also told me that you've had some problems at Barsoom Wiki, but didn't go into that too much. Anyway, I think the intended purpose of blocking a user is to get them to reflect on their actions and change, and I believe he's done that. I'm not trying to tell you how to conduct business here, but if you'd consider at least reducing the duration of the block, I don't think he'd make you regret it. Thank you. --L B C C C P 05:01, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * He's already made me regret it. I went to another wiki where he had, as it turns out, recently been made an admin, and tried to contribute. It turns out that he had been accusing unregistered users who had spoken out against his being made an admin of secretly being me trying to derail his candidacy. When I made my presence known and tried to make it clear that I wanted to go about my business in peace and just keep things cool and professional, he started going on the offensive. Long story short, it ended with him flat-out stating that the one and only reason he was banned from the ME Wiki is because I'm some sort of intolerant jerk who can't stand other people having opinions of their own. And when I reminded him of why he was banned, he went berserk and began claiming I was the one being rude to him. All I was doing was trying to have a polite conversation. I stated several times that we were both entitled to our opinions, and neither of us was right or wrong, but he went off the deep end. This was pretty recently, too. I sensed no regret whatsoever, not even a sense that he understood and accepted why he was banned. I see no reason to reduce the length of his ban. SpartHawg948 07:07, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum - I must confess, based on the above comment here, I headed on over to the Dead Space Wiki (second time in a few days, the first being on a completely unrelated matter to determine the veracity of a piece of supposed trivia on the Collectors vs Enhanced Stalkers or somesuch), and I do love what kind things you had to say about me. Flattery will get you nowhere, you know! :P
 * Levity aside, I would suggest that, rather than taking either ralok's word or my word at face value, you see for yourself. Some of what he says is more or less true, but the important thing to note is that he leaves little bits and pieces out. Did I tell the Bureaucrat of the Barsoom Wiki that I wouldn't recommend making ralok an admin, as ralok claims? I sure did. I did so, however, after Gnostic asked me for my opinion of ralok. Kind of a big detail to leave out. (You can find all the relevant details here.) As for the Barsoom Wiki itself, you can see our brouhaha here and here. In the first, despite my efforts at conciliation, and my trying to point out that we were both entitled to our opinions, ralok goes off on me for reasons unknown. In the second, he accuses unregistered users of secretly being me. I find this most humorous, as he and his friends are the ones always accusing me of stalking them. The word paranoia springs to mind... Anywho, as stated previously, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Mine is no more or less valid than yours, though I will refrain from calling you names or criticizing your methods of administering your wiki. A little of the same in return would be nice, but is not mandated. And again, don't just take my word for it, or ralok's word for it. Please, feel free to examine the matters fully (I'd also recommend reading all of ralok's user talk, including the massive section that was deleted during a previous ban he received from Tullis). That should give you a clearer picture. SpartHawg948 09:09, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I hadn't seen all of that. Also, last night there was a bit of a similar confrontation between ralok and another user whom he accused of suppressing his opinion and it ended with me letting him off with a warning. I don't entirely understand, as sometimes he's a really valuable membner and can contribute a lot and other times he flies off the handle and does the things that get him into trouble. And by the way, I have no problem with you. Lancer is the one who banned me from here with really no justification and who I think has had the power of being an administrator go to his head. I initially said that I had a problem with you so that ralok wouldn't proceed to engage me in a similar talk page dialogue regarding how you have it out for him and tell me more how you throw around 'defamation.' I just want to work on the Wiki which I've been trusted to help lead; I don't want outside problems dragged to me, and I'm sure no administrator does. Personally, I think Mass Effect Wiki is better than it was was Tullis seemed to lead it a couple years ago, and I'm also impressed that you have 13,000 edits in just over three years. Thank you for the information - I'll be more strict with him in the future. --L B C C C P 19:13, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, I "banned [you] from here with really no justification" Well then if you are banned then why does nothing show up in the block log for you. You have never been blocked by me or anyone else, and I've had only one interaction with you that I can recall. As to "and who I think has had the power of being an administrator go to his head" I have not let it go to my head and frankly I find that 100% insutling which is against the guidelines for instulting other users. I would like an apology for instuling me and for making false accusations when the evidence is clearly against you. I would offer the same in this situation. Lancer1289 19:19, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, as I stated above, I don't expect you to take my word as the God's Honest Truth or anything, nor would I hope you take ralok's word as such. Things like this nearly always turn into one person's word vs another's, which is why I prefer merely providing the relevant links and saying "Here's my side, but don't take my word for it. See for yourself and reach your own decision, even if you decide I'm in the wrong." I actually remembered some more links you might find telling, namely this one, though I think by now a clear trend has emerged.

As to what you are describing happening on your wiki, I can only say that regrettably, that's about what we saw of ralok here too. Generally productive and a valuable member of the community, but flying into rages at the drop of a hat, and at times, the hat drops pretty often. As for your referring to me negatively in order to prevent unpleasantness, all I can say is... fair enough! That's actually pretty darn clever, and I commend you for it. To quote my hero, Homer Simpson, it was a plan "fiendishly clever in all it's intricacies." Now, as to the rest of the message: First of all, thank you, Your words are too kind, and I'm pretty sure that they are much too generous. I consider myself but a pale imitation of Tullis as far as administration goes, but it's very nice to hear you speak well of the wiki under my (more or less) benign hand. As for the edits, what can I say? I'm a go-getter. :)

And I would be remiss if I didn't attempt to settle a possible dispute while I'm here. I could be mistaken, but my impression is that LBCCCP was likely banned on an anonymous account, and this is what is being referred to. If so, clearly no insult is present, nor was one intended, nor can one even be construed, and as such, an apology would be unwarranted. I could be mistaken, but that's the sense I'm getting here. SpartHawg948 20:30, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

I think the confrontation between Lancer has been resolved, so thanks for the interjection. You were right in your assumption of what had happened. Africa isn't quite on the same page as everywhere else when it comes to internet networking, which makes Nigeria so fit for scamming people online :P Well I'll be getting back to "my" wiki now, but before I go I'd like to relay a message to the American Armed Forces on behalf of the greater-African community:

Don't waste your time with Somalia or Egypt; Somalia will piss someone off with less to lose and will be raided and subjugated/bombed off the map, and Egypt may be under martial law for a while and less than pleased with America's role in supporting Hosni Mubarak for 30 years, but they won't try anything. The best thing you can do is raise vacation package prices to Cairo.

Thanks for the understanding and I apologise for starting a bit of an incident; it was not my intention to do so. I visit ME Wiki almost every day for one reason or another, so I'll be around. You should give Dead Space a chance - it's like a non-RPG Mass Effect mixed with Donnie Darko and 28 Days Later, if you've seen those. --L B C C <font color="Black">C <font color="Lightblue">P 04:20, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not seen either of those, but I have been thinking about trying Dead Space, and this may be just what I needed to try it! As for the other tidbit: We're kinda already involved with Somalia, what with the massive international fleet combating pirates and terrorists there, and I really don't see Egypt being an issue. The military, which is ruling the country now, is still pretty darn pro-US (they know where their bread is buttered, and who gives them shiny new weapons/protection from hostile countries in the area), and even if they were to contemplate trying something, Israel is right next door. And even though Bibi (Netanyahu) and Barry (Obama) aren't the best of friends, Israel is still our #1 ally in the region. SpartHawg948 06:54, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

I can't argue with your logic. And I'm impressed by how well versed you are in foreign affairs, not that I was expecting you not to be, just that at least in the case of the South African military, most soldiers are there to point and shoot or do whatever job it is that they are trained to do without knowing why or really seeming to care. Either you're the exception or that's why America is trusted with the "big stick," I believe it's called. --<font color="Red">L <font color="Gold">B <font color="Green">C <font color="White">C <font color="Black">C <font color="Lightblue">P 08:21, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * A little of both, I'm sure. I do read quite a bit more than the average American, I'm sure, and try to keep up on the news and foreign affairs, but a lot of the people I know are surprisingly well-versed on the matters, even some of the people you'd never suspect. As for why we get the big stick, I tend to agree with Dinesh D'Souza. We take on the role of world police because, if not America, then who? Clearly, there has to be someone keeping some semblance of order - keeping North Korea from rolling over South Korea, trying to stop piracy on the high seas, protecting small countries from larger and more aggressive neighbors, and the like. The UN has shown itself to be disturbingly ineffective in this role, due in no small part to the ability of any one of the five permanent members of the Security Council to veto anything (China and Russia, after all, rarely see eye-to-eye with the US, UK, and France), and (meaning no offense to natives of these nations) can we really trust China or Russia to do it? China has a clear history of aggressive expansion at the expense of its smaller neighbors, and literally the only thing keeping this fate from befalling Taiwan is the USA, and Russia under Putin similarly has quite the reputation as an international bully. Well, enough of my rant. I'll close now, and thank you again for your kind words. I'm glad I impressed you, as opposed to underwhelming you! :) SpartHawg948 08:32, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

You're a power crazy asshole
Hey I think you should change the name of the wiki from "Mass Effect Wiki" to "SpartHawg948's and Lancer1289's Mass Effect Wiki (No one else can edit)". That would clear up a lot of things with new users and save them a whole lot of time editing, cos it would only get deleted if they did anyway! And SpartHawg you've got no justification to say "I have no patience whatsoever with crybabies, whiners..." when you're the biggest fucking whiner on this wiki. Jeez as soon as I read some of your posts around the wiki you came off as a total prick. You're condescending, pompous, rude (and I know I'm being rude now but you deserve it). You really are a power crazy asshole and you and Lancer are definately abusing your power as admins. A wiki is a collaborative effort between MANY editors, not just between two megalomaniac admins.

Well anon from this it looks to me like you are the true "crybaby".User:Sniperteam82308


 * Sigh* Why don't people understand how much word does it take to be an admin? Maintaining the Wiki is hard, especially when/if it is a Wikia of something popular and often gets bombarded by noobs and rabid fans. Of course admins should be strict, imagine what would happen if they let others do whatever they please. Besides, site policies aren't hard to read and follow. And finally, the strictest admins that I know are still on Narutopedia. There, they don't let you create userpages and blogs, or upload images without a detailed license description, which I find justified, too, because Naruto fanbase is sure even crazier and otherwise would overrun the Wiki, flooding it with fandom stuff and fanart. --Kiadony 08:28, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm frankly at a loss about what to say. Kiadony is correct in that it is hard being and admin, but at the same time, edits are usually undone for a very good reason and anyone is of course free to say something about it. We can justify edits, and edits counter to the MoS and established guidelines need to be undone or adjusted as necessary. There are a number of people who edit here who help with the site, and sometimes, as shocking it may be to you, their edits stay and nothing is done about it. Here's another surprise, sometimes edits are undone by people who aren't admins either for various reasons. There are many people who are both registered and unregistered who make this wiki a better place, but at the same time edits need to be looked over to see if they conform to the standards that have been established. If they don't, then they have to be undone or modified depending on the situation.
 * There are a number of things that were completely uncalled for in that comment that I also don't know what to say about it but a warning about the language and banning policies has been dropped. I'll be interested to see what Spart's response to this will be. Lancer1289 14:55, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

Sweet! I LOVE what happens every time I go away for a day or two! Anarchy and yelling and bad words aplenty! Thank you, anonymous user, for justifying my actions with your stunning display of boorishness. If there were no users like you, there'd be no need for admins. But hey, enough of this! Let's discuss those points:


 * 1) Changing the wiki name to SpartHawg948's and Lancer1289's Mass Effect Wiki (No one else can edit). Now, my thoughts on the matter are that this would be a bad idea, because it's a pretty obvious fact that many people edit this wiki on a daily basis. I know for a fact that my edits are far outnumbered by those of non-admins, and I'm pretty sure this holds true even if you combine my edits with Lancers edits.
 * 2) I have plenty of justification to say what I say on my user page. Demonstrate to me how I am the biggest whiner on the wiki, if you please. I can think of at least one person more deserving of that title, though I won't name names, as that would be unkind.
 * 3) Finally, as to the charges that "You're condescending, pompous, rude (and I know I'm being rude now but you deserve it). You really are a power crazy asshole and you and Lancer are definately abusing your power as admins." Let me just say, if you think so, you don't know me. If you want, I'll take the kid gloves I wear off. Then we'll see who's condescending, pompous, and rude. Not to mention derisive, dismissive, vulgar, and just plain old mean. And if you want to see me abuse my power, you have but to ask. When I start banning users for no reason at all, not even flimsy ones, then you'll know I'm abusing my power. SpartHawg948 03:38, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Storyline and Bridging DLC

 * Good day, Spart! Hope you're doing well.


 * I am unsure if this has been covered without my knowledge, but wouldn't it be a good idea if we included a section for the bridging DLC in the Storyline article? I'm specifically referring to Liar of the Shadow Broker, as it is, according to BioWare, the first piece of content that "bridges the gap" between ME2 and ME3, so by definition, it is a canonical part of the overarching plot; that is to say, it happens anyway.


 * We know there is at least one more such DLC on the way, so I'm guessing it would be a good idea to include them after the Suicide Mission bit of the Mass Effect 2 storyline (i.e. inbetween the Suicide Mission and Retribution), with a good summary of what happens in each one of them.


 * Just a suggestion from me. I think it would work, since this is canonical content after all. Awaiting your response. -- Fiery Phoenix 17:33, February 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that sounds like something worth pursuing. You're correct that these bridge the gap and are canonical. I'm envisioning something along the lines of the sections for the books and comics, which can most notably be seen in the first few sections of the Storyline II. If this is what you were thinking too, then great! If not, feel free to run whatever you were thinking of by me. But yeah, I totally agree with you that it would work and is worth doing. So consider this my seal of approval! :D SpartHawg948 19:46, February 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice! I honestly didn't think you would see it as a necessary addition, but I'm glad I was wrong. :)


 * And yes, that's pretty much what I was thinking. However, it will probably be better suited after the suicide mission segment of ME2 and before the Retribution entry (so that it's part of the ME2 storyline), as I mentioned above. I could do it tomorrow when I'm free, but if someone else is willing to do it on my behalf, then be it! -- Fiery Phoenix 20:11, February 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that sounds good. Placing something as nebulous as the DLC into the Storyline could be a bit tricky, but I do think that it's better to place it after the Suicide Mission than anywhere in the ME2 info. Good call on that one. So yeah, no rush, feel free to write it at your convenience, assuming someone else doesn't get to it first. SpartHawg948 20:14, February 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Got it. Will try coming up with a decent summary of LOTSB and integrate it in. Thanks! -- Fiery Phoenix 20:24, February 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * You betcha! And thank you! The enthusiasm and initiative are much appreciated! :) SpartHawg948 20:28, February 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's done. I must say it turned out longer than I'd imagined, but I tried my best with it and hopefully it's an accurate, seamless summary covering the whole DLC. If you feel like making any changes to it, you don't even need to ask. Go ahead and do it. Still, I'd like to hear your opinion on it. -- Fiery Phoenix 13:45, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to jump in and suggest a couple of things. Personally I think it would be a good idea for any DLC Storyline sections to include a that depending on player choices, they can either take place before or after the ending of Mass Effect 2. At least for Lair, we don't know what the Arrival situation is yet. Casey Hudson has said in the past that over time DLC would go from assuming players hadn't finished to assuming that they had (saw it on YouTube, from a promotional event for Overlord). This might mean that Arrival will be post game only, in which case this will only apply to Lair, but it's worth considering.
 * Also, I'm not a fan of 'Lair of the Shadow Broker (Mass Effect 2)'. I think Lair of the Shadow Broker is enough, or if not Mass Effect 2: Lair of the Shadow Broker. I just think the use of brackets in a heading is ugly, that's all. JakePT 15:22, February 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * Duly noted. Thanks for your input, Jake. Edited. -- Fiery Phoenix 16:49, February 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, if it hasn't been implemented already, the note idea JakePT suggested sounds good. SpartHawg948 19:02, February 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * We will have to do the same once Arrival hits. - Fiery Phoenix 19:12, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, if it's impossible to play it without completing the main story, just putting it at the end should be enough. JakePT 07:56, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Thanks for the welcome. Are you a bot or something?? Just joking.. immediately (1 min or so) after my signup you posted the welcome sign. Anyways.. pleasure in meet you. Ruphius 05:54, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * You betcha! I personally am not a robot, being distrustful of any machine that could be smarter than me (which is why I don't own a smart phone... clever little buggers!) but you are more or less correct. The welcome message is an automated function. When someone makes their first edit, they get a message like the one you got, signed by the most recently active admin, in this case me. That said, I'm pleased to make your acquaintance, and would like to personally welcome you and thank you for signing up! :) SpartHawg948 05:58, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks For The Message
Thanks. I don't suppose you could help with that issue? I can re-post here if you like (without the image of course).

--Tea Break 09:08, March 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, but the answer there is 'no'. I don't know nothing about no codes for no armor. I'm strictly an XBox 360 man when it comes to Mass Effect. I would perhaps recommend asking Lancer1289. SpartHawg948 09:14, March 3, 2011 (UTC)

Latin grammar on the Quarian page
I'm sure we can resolve this without an edit war. I've looked at the University of Notre Dame's Latin dictionary, as you said, for "quaerens", here: http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=quaer&ending=ens

As you can see, it says that it is a form of "quaero, quaerere, quaesii (or quaesivi), quaesitum" meaning "to seek, search for". I think you are being misled by that--it does not mean to say that quaerens means "to seek, search for"; that simply refers to the base meaning of the verb. Note that it will say the exact same thing for "quaerere": http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=quaer&ending=ere

Look down and you will see that "-ens" is listed as the present participle ending of the verb "quaerere". Not the infinitive. The present participle is the "ing" form.

For examples, consider some words derived from Latin present participles:
 * "Dormant", from the Latin "dormans, dormantis" i.e. "sleeping"
 * "Potent", from the Latin "potens, potentis" i.e. "having power"
 * "Current", from the Latin "currens, currentis" i.e. "running"
 * "Salient", from the Latin "saliens, salientis" i.e. "leaving"

Also, see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitives#Latin_and_Romance_languages article on Latin infinitives. As it says, "in Latin, almost all verbs had an infinitive ending with -re".

And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participle#Latin on participles. As it says, "present active participle: present stem + -ns (gen. –ntis)".

--Lucius Voltaic 04:34, March 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, it's actually already an edit war, and has been for a couple of edits now. This is really something you should have done earlier. If you'd like, we can simply remove the entire thing altogether, or perhaps compromise and substitute "quaero" for "quaerens", as I'm sure neither of us would dispute the meaning of quaero. SpartHawg948 04:47, March 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it's productive to argue about whether this is an edit war. Anyway, I would recommend you talk to a professor of Latin about this. But the compromise is a good idea.

--Lucius Voltaic 04:57, March 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * I was not arguing about whether or not this is an edit war. I was flat-out stating that, per the policy of this site, it is an edit war. There is literally nothing to be argued here. It's a black-and-white site policy. Nor did I blame you for not bringing it up on a talk page. I merely said it should have been done sooner. I could have done so myself, this is true. It's not the norm for the site, as the normal convention is for the person who wants to make the change to bring it up if the change was reverted, but you are correct, I could have broken with convention and done so myself. However, I tend to dig in and become more combative than usual when the other party becomes rude or condescending, such as telling me to do research or to stop embarrassing myself, neither of which are called for in a conversation between two mature adults. SpartHawg948 05:02, March 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, I apologize for being rude. --Lucius Voltaic 05:05, March 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * It happens in these situations. Just please try not to let it happen again. Being rude to other users, while not quite on the same level of naughtiness as directly insulting other users or being profane towards them or anything, is still frowned up per site policy and the Community Guidelines and whatnot. I totally understand your frustration, being no stranger to Wiki-induced frustration myself, but keeping it in check is pretty important, as this site does tend to have stricter guidelines on the subject than most. SpartHawg948 05:11, March 7, 2011 (UTC)

Trivia on "Borr"
I already went over this with Lancer. As it is now, it is saying that what is in keeping with the naming system is that Borr is Odin's father. That is not what is in keeping with the naming system. What is in keeping with the naming system is that the planet was named after Odin's father. The sentence as it stands now has no reference to the planet whatsoever.

Besides, as Lancer agreed when we were discussing this, there is no policy that older wordings are automatically better. If you want to argue that my wording is worse, you may do so, but if you think it's just unnecessary, then that's no reason to delete it. --Lucius Voltaic 02:27, March 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * You did go over this with Lancer. However, that conversation is as-yet unresolved, so I can't really see the validity of using it as a justification. It's like me asking you to stop something I think is wrong but, before we reach an understanding, banning you. Then, when you ask why, I say "I already went over it with you." A one-sided resolution is not acceptable on this type of issue, especially when the other party is an admin (as Lancer is) who still has issues with your arguments (as Lancer does). Resolve the situation before using it to justify your actions. SpartHawg948 02:40, March 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * I was just referring to the fact that Lancer had said it was OK.


 * But anyway, let me explain. The phrase "in keeping with" is similar to the phrases "in accordance with", "in compliance with", etc. These phrases, including "in keeping with", all imply a conscious choice to conform to a certain standard. The standard in this case is, of course, "planets in the Asgard system are named after Norse gods"; those conforming to it are those who named the planets, not the Norse or their mythological figures. --Lucius Voltaic 02:44, March 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflicted... again) Additionally, I do happen to believe that your wording is worse. It's clunky and doesn't read well at all. My revert was in no way predicated upon a belief that "older words are automatically better." This should be pretty obvious, given that at no point did I argue that "older words are automatically better" or anything even remotely approaching that logic. New words, as it turns out, are also not automatically better, and sometimes change is worse than the status quo. Your rewording, IMHO, left much to be desired, and was definitely a case where the status quo was better than the new version. SpartHawg948 02:48, March 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Jumping in here, but what I said was if you could reword it to where it wasn't clunky, then that in no sense of the word says that just because I don't have a problem with it, does not mean that someone else does and that by saying that I said it was OK is twisting my words. I did not have a chance to review it considering I've been just catching up, and now that I have, I still would have reverted it. I should also point out that Spart is higher on the food chain so to speak then me and is free to overrule me at any time. I should also mention that another user could have a problem with your rewording and revert it, then if you say that I OK'd it, I would have a big problem with that as I may not have seen it. Anyone is free to revert an edit and saying that I said it was OK implies that I saw it and then said OK. This is not always the case as I may be offline for whatever reason, and then you are twisting my words to justify something that I may not have been OK with. I said if you can reword it to make it not so clunky, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. However, I also said that I don't have a problem with the current version. And just to say it again, twisting my words to say that I OK'd something, when I may not have OK'd it as I may not have seen the content, is something taht I have a problem with. Then using that as a justification to say "well he said it was OK" so why did you undo it, is taking my words, twisting them, and taking them out of context. I again said that I would be OK with a change, even though I have no problem with the current version, if it could be made less clunkly, awkward, flow better, or anything else. That however, does not mean that anyone else can't have a problem with it as anyone is free to revert it. Lancer1289 02:59, March 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * @SpartHawg: Well, alright. I would be better able to fix the sentence if you would tell me what the criteria for "good wording" are--I thought my wording was unornamented but clear. As it is, the criteria sound like personal preference or "I'll know it when I see it", which is very difficult to work with.


 * @Lancer: Twisting your words? I don't think I was twisting your words. You said that if I could reword it to make it better, you would be OK with that. That's all I was referring to. I didn't mean to imply that you had given your seal of approval or something. And how was I supposed to know you hadn't even looked at the article in question? Pardon me for saying so, but that seems kind of irresponsible to me. --Lucius Voltaic 03:06, March 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * However you did imply that I said it was OK. As an admin, when you say that you discussed something with me, then more than likely the majority of the people on this site would take it as that I had OK'd it. Considering Spart is correct in that the discussion is currently still unresolved, using it as a justification for an edit doesn't help your case. And whno or what exaclty is irresponsible because that is confusing. Lancer1289 03:17, March 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * I mean that it seems irresponsible of you to discuss edits on a page before looking at the page. But if we can put all this behind us, I still believe that the sentence requires some sort of change. How about this: In keeping with the naming theme of the Asgard system, Borr is named after the father of the god Odin in Norse mythology. Or even just "of the Norse god Odin" as that implies mythology. --Lucius Voltaic 03:21, March 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * And I'm still confused. If you are talking about how I said a reword was OK, then I said that I still would have reverted it, I fail to see how that is irresponsible. I was planning to continue the discussion and work something out before an edit was made. So I fail to see how I'm the one who is irresponsible here. Lancer1289 03:30, March 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm just saying that you made a tentative statement before reviewing the facts. I honestly don't want to push this into an argument, though, all I want is to fix that darned sentence. --Lucius Voltaic 03:34, March 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * "In keeping with the naming theme of the Asgard system, Borr is named after the father of the god Odin in Norse mythology." works with me. As for it being a matter of personal preference, it is, just as much as your wanting to change a wording that has been acceptable to scores of editors for over a year prior to this is a matter of your personal preference. All I was concerned about was readability. Making it two sentences, with the second being the horrifically clunky "The planet's name thus follows the Norse naming theme of the Asgard system." did nothing to make the trivia clearer or more readable. The version you proposed on this page, and that I quote in this response, is far superior, and if Lancer has no objections, would be perfectly acceptable to me. SpartHawg948 04:11, March 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, scratch that. Let's slightly modify it, as it still seems a tad bit clunky. Maybe "In keeping with the naming theme of the Asgard system, Borr is named after the father of the Norse god Odin."? Does that work for you? The part about 'in Norse mythology' seems a bit redundant when we mention that Odin is a god. SpartHawg948 04:14, March 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I suggested that very wording a little while back...so, yeah, that would be great. --Lucius Voltaic 04:19, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

I was going to remind you that I had asked for Lancer's input first, and to therefor hold off on making the edit until he had a chance to comment... but I see I'm too late. Fantastic... SpartHawg948 04:22, March 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't have to get sarcastic with me just because I followed your recommendations. --Lucius Voltaic 04:27, March 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * No sarcasm was directed at you. More a generalized statement of wry frustration. As for the other part, I actually recommended we get Lancer's input before changing anything. If you'd followed my recommendations, the last few comments never would have happened, as this situation never would have occurred. SpartHawg948 04:29, March 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, considering you said "Scratch that" in reference to the post which included the part about Lancer... --Lucius Voltaic 04:34, March 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Negativ-o. The scratch that was a reference to the line I suggested using. This seemed obvious to me as the only part of the prior post I commented upon or posed an alternative to in the scratch that addendum was the actual quote. If I'd decided to leave Lancer out of the loop, I'd have specifically mentioned it. Something of that import always gets an explicit mention from me. Of course, you could have asked for clarification if you'd thought I was being vague. I'm always happy to clarify. SpartHawg948 04:38, March 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I leave for an hour and a half and look what happens. Anyway after looking through it, I would have to say that Spart's sentence, "In keeping with the naming theme of the Asgard system, Borr is named after the father of the Norse god Odin" would probabaly be the best. Lancer1289 05:08, March 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * You think that's bad? Try leaving for a week or so. Every time I do, craziness seems to ensue. But hey, on the bright side, we've talked and talked and talked... and worked out a solution everyone can live with. Huzzah! SpartHawg948 05:11, March 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hooray for solving things with negotiation! Even if the length-of-negotiation-to-importance-of-result ratio is a bit high, that's life. --Lucius Voltaic 05:51, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

Please
Must you tear people apart every chance you get? If you did not see the respect how I presented it, that is fine, but ultimately that was the intent. Please accept it for what it was, blaming it on my incompetence if that pleases you. And yes, I realize you will see this as disrespectful. -- Shoggoth1890 07:38, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not tearing anyone apart. Trust me, you'd know if I was. Asking users to follow the same rules and procedures that everyone else, admins and bureaucrat included, follow is not tearing people apart. That terminology suggests malice aforethought, and I resent the implication that I engaged in any such behavior. SpartHawg948 07:52, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

You say that a lot, please demonstrate. -- Shoggoth1890 07:57, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Demonstrate what, exactly? SpartHawg948 07:58, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

The implication that what you do is nothing in comparison to what you can do. I've grown curious. -- Shoggoth1890 08:04, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Site language policies preclude any such demonstration. Rest assured, if I start spewing profanities and actually insulting people (I mean real insults, not just asking people to abide by site policies), then you'll know. To be completely honest, I don't like the person I become when I'm really angry. I can be abrasive under normal circumstances, but when I get really ticked off, I become deliberately and blatantly rude, demeaning, and hurtful. I see no need to try and dredge up that unpleasantness to satisfy anyone's curiosity.
 * Really, though: what did I possibly do to tear you apart? What was so horrible about what I said? All I did was call your edit inappropriate (it was) and ask you to abide by site policies (which everyone should be doing anyways, completely unbidden). SpartHawg948 08:10, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Wording is everything. Subtle differences can radically change the subtext presented. I encounter this problem myself, so I accept any criticism on how I may state things.

I would not consider a curse filled rant to be tearing someone apart; it would just be a curse filled rant. If you truly wanted to communicate the policy to me, then you could simply state that clearly, such as: "Site policy dictates that removal of information be discussed beforehand". Your wording places it on a more personal level, and tries to tell me that my beliefs are wrong when clearly it is simply a difference of opinion about what is "respect". Perhaps you and I are from different cultures, displays of respect being a common difference cross-culture. -- Shoggoth1890 08:32, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * And I was stating policy clearly. That's literally all I was doing. I've found it most effective to make sure that people are aware that the reason I am stating policy clearly is because something they did merited my stating policy clearly. As such, when I state policy clearly, I make sure that I do so in a manner that communicates to them why I am doing so (which does tend to make it more personal). A personal message is (in my experience) always more effective than an impersonal recitation from rote. And, in all fairness, when did I ever tell you your beliefs were wrong? The only thing I can think of that comes close is when I answered your "Inappropriate no" (which I actually did find disrespectful, as it seemed to me that you were arguing site policy with me when it was a clear-cut case) with 'Inappropriate yes'. If there's something I'm forgetting where I did tell you your beliefs were wrong, please let me know. I can, however, recall no such occurrence. SpartHawg948 08:42, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Again, subtle differences. Inappropriate vs. improper. Picture being back in school and receiving a paper back. If something was circled and the word "inappropriate" was added, it would carry the connotation of "uncalled for". If it were circled and the word "improper" added, it would carry the connotation of "not adhering to format". Although they mostly mean the same thing, secondary applications can cause hostile associations. Am I saying you should change? No. This is meant to be constructive criticism in "playing politics". Take it as you will or decide that it is not constructive.

"If your intent was, as you claim, to bring it back to my attention, surely the fastest and most effective way would have been to leave me a message, wouldn't it? I mean, then I'd even get a notification telling me to check my talk page!" This is an example of bringing it to the personal level. I never said bringing it to your attention was the 'intent', only that in the case that you had forgotten, seeing an article that you dispute a claim to would serve to bring it to your attention. You go on to say that I was arguing with you over policy, which I never did. My statement was to clarify my reason. Obviously I did not succeed, but I'll only explain it more if you want to hear it. -- Shoggoth1890 09:28, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate does mean uncalled for. Your edit was uncalled for. The reason it was uncalled for was because it was improper in that it did not adhere to site policy. I chose my words with purpose. Inappropriate was what I meant, so inappropriate was what I said. I'd hope that my professors (no need to picture being back in school, seeing as I'm currently in school, as I stated earlier on in the discussion on the Talk:Quarian page! :P) would be similarly frank.
 * As for the second bit, I was responding to a statement you made, and attempting to inform you of a more suitable method of going about business. If, as you suspected, I'd forgotten, the best way to go about things would have been to leave me a message. Again, there was nothing insulting or derogatory about what I said. "[B]ringing it to the personal level" is not the same as tearing you down. And as for arguing policy, I'm fairly certain I already made clear why I thought this was what you were doing, and did so with the caveat that it seemed (meaning at the time, meaning in the past, meaning I no longer hold this opinion) that you were arguing over policy. Finally, is there any instance of my telling you your beliefs were wrong? (Hint - I'm big on calling people when they make statements about me I believe are unfounded, like this one, and really appreciate retractions of such statements if they in fact are unfounded. And while we're on the topic, I'm still pretty sure the claim I "tear people apart every chance [I] get" is similarly without a basis in fact). SpartHawg948 09:40, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, inappropriate was a correct word to use, I was speaking of its connotations. Playing politics. If it was not your intent to be insulting, then I apologize for my comment. My criticism of wording still stands however. The parts of your quote that were inappropriate were "as you claim", "surely", and "wouldn't it?" They are unnecessary and only contribute to an air of condescension. -- Shoggoth1890 10:03, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Playing politics? Now I'm afraid you've completely lost me. I was playing no such game, merely speaking in my role as bureaucrat, calling an inappropriate edit inappropriate. And you are correct that there was no intent to be insulting. As for my quote, I can assure you that at no point was any part of it, even the snippets you highlight, inappropriate. I put "as you claim" because you did claim to be (at least in part) mindful that I may have forgotten about the discussion, and you wanted your actions to jog my memory (even if it wasn't your "intent"), yet your actions didn't seem to reflect this. "Surely" is self-explanatory. Surely the fastest and most effective way to get my attention is by leaving me a message, isn't it? I cannot for the life of me see how using "surely" in that context could possibly be construed as inappropriate. And "wouldn't it?" also speaks for itself. I was inquiring as to whether or not my statement was factual and sensible. Again, no part of it was inappropriate, and certainly no part was meant to be condescending. If you read condescension into it, I'm sorry, but that was most definitely not the intent of my comment. And please, before you go around bandying about accusations that my comments are "inappropriate", please ensure that they are. Nothing I said, again, was inappropriate. Certainly not by the standards of site policy. SpartHawg948 16:16, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Shoggoth, I see where you're coming from, but honestly I think you need to be a bit more thick-skinned about all of this. Some of SpartHawg's words may not have been chosen for maximum niceness, but he's not trying to insult you, nor do I think he's really doing it, trying or no. This is the internet, remember, where no one knows you're a dog; or more applicably, where no one can see that you're not cackling and rubbing your hands in anticipation of subtly insulting another editor. So try not to assume the cackling. --Lucius Voltaic 16:33, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! I was beginning to wonder myself if I should point out the necessity of a thick skin here. I tend to operate under the assumption that everyone here is an adult, and as such, needs very little in the way of sugar-coating. I don't do sugar-coating, preferring frankness myself. As Lucius Voltaic pointed out, and I fully acknowledge, my words were not chosen for maximum niceness. (In my book, choosing words for maximum niceness = sugar-coating) He is also correct that at no time did I intend to be insulting, and from his 'outside looking in' (or 'man on the street', 'unbiased third party', whatever you want to call it) perspective, they are not. This gets back to my earlier comment - if I were trying to be insulting, you'd know it, because I'd actually be insulting you. As I have no wish to insult you, condescend to you, or any such, I did nothing of the sort. On the contrary, I was frank, direct, and straight to the point, as I tend to think a good way to show respect to another person is to be direct with them, and not to get wishy-washy with language. As such, I was floored when you left me a message asking me "[m]ust you tear people apart every chance you get?", as I'd done nothing of the sort. Being accused of things I've not done tends to get me on edge, as evidenced in this thread.
 * I must also thank Lucius Voltaic for the insightful post which has, in my opinion, done much to further this conversation and hopefully push it into a productive direction. Generally, unbidden comments into an issue between two people can go one of two ways: they can either greatly aid the situation, becoming a boon to both users and reflecting well on the user who left the comment, or they can be counterproductive, doing nothing to further the discussion and causing nothing but frustration to those involved. This comment was definitely the former. Thanks! :) SpartHawg948 21:07, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

I acknowledge your right to be rude, hence my earlier comment. The criticism was added as something to consider in case you did not want to come off rude. If, as you claim, you cannot understand how the addition of a statement of presupposed certainty followed by a rhetorical question is condescending, then surely the best way to find out would be to ask your english professor, wouldn't it? Certainly not asking the yokel on the internet that you can brush off. I don't need words sugar-coated, I simply prefer them not arsenic-laced. And no, you do not have thick skin, and you do not treat people like adults. I'm giving up on any sort of politeness. You can't even bring yourself to offer the courtesy of apologizing if something was taken the wrong way, unable to consider the possibility that it was source-end error and must have been the incompetence of the listener. For the sake of the wiki, I truly hope you consider Commdor or even Lucius to be admin. Someone with has a modicum of tact.

For the record, I did raise the issue on the talk page before deleting it. Waited 10 days for refutation and none came. How long does one have to wait? If I wanted to make sure a page is eternally preserved, do I just have to post on a discussion without posting my resolution? Then when someone deletes something, tell them they have violated policy because the discussion was ongoing, despite the last post being a year ago? Are you really so much into asserting your dominance on these pages that every bit must smell of your urine? -- Shoggoth1890 04:13, March 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well...um. --Lucius Voltaic 04:46, March 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Someone with a modicum of tact... such as yourself? Nothing I said to you was "arsenic-laced". If you can't take blunt words and a little criticism of your actions, you need to reconsider using the internet. You are indeed mighty thin-skinned if you are so offended by words that even an impartial observer finds inoffensive that you must demand apologies. And really! Demanding an apology from me after yourself refusing to apologize for your baseless and dare I say shameless accusations. I've yet to see you back up your claim that I ever told you your beliefs were wrong. And I've similarly not seen any proof of this constant desire you claim I have to tear you down. If you want an apology, maybe you should consider your own words and actions first, eh? Talk about a lack of courtesy. At least I don't wander around casually sullying your name with B.S. accusations that have no basis in fact.


 * And no, you did not "raise the issue on the talk page before deleting it." A cursory examination of the pertinent information will show this, and will also display your woefully inadequate grasp of reality on the matter. You did not wait "10 days for refutation and none came." I clearly stated I'd review the pertinent material. This was a response. Not a refutation, but certainly a response. You were seemingly aware at least of the possibility that my failure to respond may have been the result of the discussion having slipped my mind, yet you failed, I repeat failed to bring the issue up again on the talk page before deleting the info. Again, a simple review of the page history makes this abundantly clear. As for asserting dominance, yes. That's clearly what I'm doing. Admitting I was wrong, removing the info I had supported, and adding the info you brought to light is clearly me asserting my dominance so that "every bit must smell of [my] urine." Grow up, and leave the ridiculous hyperbole at home where it belongs. SpartHawg948 04:51, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

Lucius Voltaic, I am genuinely sorry. You left a message which I thought could only carry the discussion into a positive and constructive direction, and then the response is this horrendous display of vitriol on the part of the other party. I know you and I haven't always gotten along, but know that you have my genuine appreciation and respect. I have nothing but respect for anyone who attempts to clearly and calmly mediate and/or arbitrate a dispute (just ask Arbington, the arbitrator extraordinaire), and you did just that. Unfortunately, it appears to have been for naught. Thanks anyways for attempting to be the voice of reason and civility. SpartHawg948 04:55, March 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * I try. ;) --Lucius Voltaic 05:02, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict x2) Um would be a good descriptor for that last comment. The entire last sentence of that was not only uncalled for, but frankly insulting no matter how you put it. I have seen many times over Spart communicating in a calm, peaceful, tact manor, despite incrusts, language, and a host of other things thrown at him. I honestly can't see one thing in his comments that "arsenic-laced" or anything like that. There are a few times where he has chewed people out, and trust me, you would know when that time is. This is not anywhere on the same planet, let alone the same galaxy as that level. Spart is correct in stating that nothing he said was inappropriate, or against policy, yet however some parts of your comment were. His comments are actually quite neutral and small phrases like "as you claim" I also can't see how they are inappropriate or anything else. You claimed something, and he was pointing that out. Every piece you site is again neither inappropriate or frankly rude. There are a number of things in your comment that are just outright rude and frankly uncalled for. You interpreted his comments the way you wanted to, which to say is him being rude and insulting you, yet now two outside people say they weren't rude and as I've stated many times here, there are literally billions of ways of interpreting text. Because you are in an argument with him, you chose to interpret Spart's comments as rude and insulting, yet in conversation every day I would hear that and wouldn't find it insulting, or rude for that matter. You must approach interpreting text with an unbiased and neutral head, for lack of a better term at the moment, otherwise it will lead to misinterpretations based on a biased reaction. I do not see one reason why Spart should apologize in this instance
 * As to discussions, as long as it is ongoing, then it is still valid as new information could develop or others could lend their voice to the discussion. 10 days is not unheard of for something to go unresolved, sometimes months have passed before a decision is reached. Lancer1289 05:05, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Better beware, you two, lest ye be the next to be accused of being tactless monsters who belittle people for their beliefs, seek to destroy all who oppose you, and pee on everything! :P SpartHawg948 05:27, March 18, 2011 (UTC)