User talk:SpartHawg948

User:SpartHawg948/archive1

OT: User SilentShadow
Hey. How you're doing? I'm a admin at Assassin's Creed Wiki, and user SilentShadow has created a userpage there for writing of a Mass Effect guide. I've done some background check, and he seems to be somewhat... pesky. Since you had some "history" with him, won't hurt to ask your opinion. You think he can be trouble? -- D. Cello 00:31, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well hello! Always nice to see folks from other wikis! Yes, yes I do think he can be trouble. He has a history of rude behavior and making derogatory comments to other users, as well as attempting to monopolize articles by posting things at the top of the page such "THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS, please do not edit anything before it is completed" and "do not edit this our self because I'm constantly playing the game and typing here." I can't say for sure that's how your wiki operates (it's a very nice wiki, btw. I was there all the time while I was playing Assassin's Creed 2) but I'm sure you don't appreciate users telling other users not to edit pages. As for what he's doing over there, that's up to you, but I know I wouldn't be too keen on someone using their page here for an AC2 guide. He has to do it there b/c he was banned from this wiki for his behavior. Hope this helps, and let me know if you have any more questions! :) SpartHawg948 00:56, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

New Person - Slightly confused...
Hi,

Don't want to make an enormous fuss, but can I ask for an explanation why we want tons and tons of redirects all over the place?

I know it makes it slightly easier for a new person to add content, but it does add quite a bit of work for the wiki software / internet connections.

Not trying to rock the boat too hard, just would like to know why the policy is in place?

Dancing.Shadow 01:17, February 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the reason we have the redirects is so we don't have to have a ton of aliases in articles. It makes it easier for editors when making changes to articles. Our goal isn't to be software/internet connection friendly, it's to be user friendly. SpartHawg948 01:24, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Been reading through editing pages and run into something I didn't know (or had forgotten), that you can point a link and tag the s on afterwards eg: turians becomes turians
 * Would this be acceptable? Its just something that I can be quite anal about, had to survive on a very VERY bad net connection for a year or two, plus I like to have the syntax "right".


 * Plus if we can loose 20 - 30 pages it seems like a nice thing to me...


 * Feel free to tell me if I'm being an idiot.


 * Dancing.Shadow 01:29, February 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd really not have too much of an issue with just using things like turians in articles (although I have seen numerous instances where it doesn't display properly) but I'd really rather not have every single instance where a redirect is used in an article changed to that, as we have a policy that if something is correct the way it is, we'd really rather users didn't go in and change it just to make it more acceptable to them personally. And even if we did this across the board, new users would still be using the redirects in articles, and we wouldn't "lose" any articles, as the redirects would still stay around, as they are very useful when using the search box, which is why most of the redirects were created in the first place, after all. SpartHawg948 01:34, February 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that redirects are server side and add no network load. --DRY 02:24, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, thanks for the tip, was working on an in house wiki a couple of weeks ago and that had Terrible (oh yes does it rate capital T) lag from redirects, thought they were using recent wikia software but apparently not... Ah well live and learn Dancing.Shadow 02:27, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it can be configured/hacked to return 302 but I'd be gobsmacked if they did – for exactly the reason that you mentioned. A quick check shows that this is indeed the case: Assignment and Assignments both result in virtually the same HTTP transaction (with encoding:gzip for Firefox anyway). --DRY 02:34, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Nope.
"Archaic" is not an archaic word. It has a meaning and a purpose. It was adopted from Greek into the English language in the 1800s. "Whilst" is an unnecessary change from "while" grounded in Early Modern English from the pre-Renaissance days that is recognized by most guidelines for style to be both archaic and needlessly strange to American and Canadian readers.

Worse still, not every instance of its use within is correct. The distinctions between "whilst" and "though" may be subtle, but they exist. Style considerations aside, whilst/while has a temporal connotation. "Though" does not. In sentences that compare two concepts and have no temporal element necessary in the conjunction, "whilst" is not just stylistically a poor choice, it is wrong.

Restoring the edits, then, is a step forward not only for international standards and usability, but for correctness. None of the edits I made were incorrect or violative of wiki standards. As such, they should not have been reverted without a good reason. Fear of rocking the boat is not one of those reasons.


 * Note also, however, Mass Effect Wiki:Manual of Style. We do cater to both sides of the pond here. --DRY 03:25, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly my point. Using a word that only applies to British style and neglecting the word that applies to all styles is not standards compliant. Get over yourself and recognize that people who write professionally might know a thing or two about writing for an audience that you don't.


 * That's rich. Talking about how we (the admins) need to get over ourselves while brandishing your supposed credentials as a professional writer. Whilst is not a word that only applies to "British style", as I've seen it used quite frequently, and Santa Clara CA is definitely not part of Great Britain. You way know a thing or two about writing for an audience, but so do other people. This may shock you, but Noncomissioned Officers in the US Military receive a fair amount of training in writing, as well as in enforcing rules. And if there's one thing I intend to keep doing, it's enforcing the language rules to the letter. SpartHawg948 06:25, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist question
Something I noticed on the watchlist, there's a green/red number by the page. It is positive or negative, respectively, and my only guess is that it is the number of lines added or subtracted. Is my guess right, or is it something else?
 * Yup, you are right on the money! :) SpartHawg948 04:04, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Number of characters rather than lines, but yes. --DRY 04:06, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean there haven't been 1,718 lines added to my talk page in the past hour? (not counting this entry, of course!) Sure seems like it! :P SpartHawg948 04:07, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Zero-G Mako 12:46, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Hey, all cool. I'm new to the editing thing or I'd add sources more often, I have a youtube video of the commercial from Illium. I hope this is enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQFF5crvydg

Creating Morality Guide for ME2
Hey, I've started working on the ME 2 morality guide and for organizational purposes, I think the original morality guide shout be renamed to "Mass Effect Morality Guide" as I've named the new one, "Mass Effect 2 Morality Guide". I don't know how to change a main title though. --Karstedt 06:10, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions
As I've done so far through the forums, I'd like to know what your current policy is in regards to suggestions. I do not wish to butt heads with administration and I don't wish to create a negative atmosphere. However, I would like to suggest improvements for the wikia in a constructive manner. If you could please let me know what the most productive course would be I would greatly appreciate it. I apologize for the main page edit and any comments which may have offended you.

07:35, February 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have suggestions, the most productive methods of disseminating them would be to either A) Bring the suggestions up on the relevant talk pages, or B) Send them to myself or one of the other admins. We're here to help. Just a quick word to the wise though, I can come across as a bit abrasive, so if you send me suggestions, it's a good idea to do the background research. For example, pointing out that we've had nearly 30 FAs on this wiki to support your proposal of rotating the FAs on a weekly, rather than a monthly, basis, seems well and good until you factor in that it's not that we've had nearly 30 FAs, it's that we've only had just under 30 FAs since July of 2007. Less than 30 FAs over the span of 32 months averages out to less than one new FA a month. Hardly support for speeding up the rotation. SpartHawg948 07:43, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Doing the research is a requisite and I seem to have forgetten it this time. Ah well, next time I suppose. I too come off as abrasive at times, so I won't take offense. Your proposal should work out just fine, and I salute you for your effort not to cop-out.

08:44, February 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Why thank you! I do what I can! :) In all seriousness though, while I may have come across a bit too harshly at first, I do wish to extend to you my appreciation for bringing this up. I started thinking about it, and the more I thought about it, the more I realized we probably can do better than once a month! SpartHawg948 08:47, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, progress. What a thing. As I mentioned, let me know if I can help.

08:50, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Also, let this serve as a lesson to my detractors (yes, I know, you're all shocked that someone as, er... nice, as me could have detractors! I'm shocked too. :P) that I CAN compromise, but in order to do so, there has to be a suggestion/proposal worthy of compromise!!! SpartHawg948 08:52, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Races discussion
I think that, at the very least, you could define these categories within the article to head off confusion. Until I have a more comprehensive suggestion that takes your given parameters into account, that's all I got. Again, I think it's going to lead to trouble in the long run to use codex categories that only cover a portion of the races/creatures in Mass Effect. As more and more of them crop up without listings, you run into the problem of dissenting classification, and ambiguously different categories. If the article were to at least explain these categories, it would help. &mdash;fodigg (talk) | 14:53, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Weapons during Battle of Citadel
Hi. A few question about the weapons used in the naval battle at the end of ME. I read about every post talking about this, but couldn't find what i was looking for. So, the Alliance cruisers shown in the final cinematic fire 3 types of ammo, a missile/torpedo, 2 laser beams and something that looks like 2 globes of molten metal that unite during flight. Is that molten metal fired from the mass accelerator ? And if so, why is it fired from the lower bow of the ship and not from the spinal gun ? Also, i understand lasers are only seen in GARDIAN systems. If so, then the 2 beams fired just before the final blow given to Sovereign must have been from a GARDIAN system...isn't it poorly placed on the front of the Alliance cruiser, where it can easily be avoided by fighters ? Finally, those missile like things are in the end disruptor torpedoes, right ? I thought they were only for fighter.

Much appreciated.


 * No idea. I'm not a writer at BioWare. I have exactly the same resources at my disposal as you do on this one, so all I can do is make educated guesses. As for why the Mass Accelerator rounds appear to be emitted from the wrong part of the cruisers, you need to talk to the folks at BioWare about this one, as I have no clue. None whatsoever. I'm just some guy who helps out as an admin here.
 * RE the GARDIAN fire- GARDIAN systems consist of multiple turrets to afford a full field of fire. There is no reason not to place one on the front of the ship, and one very good reason TO put one there. If there were no GARDIAN coverage of the front of the cruiser, that would become the natural avenue of attack for enemy fighters, wouldn't it? They'd see this big unprotected area and go for it. It'd be stupid to not put a GARDIAN there. Remember too that GARDIAN systems are not just used against fighters, but also against missiles. And I doubt the missiles will be looking to avoid GARDIAN turrets. Again, as full a field of fire as possible is better to avoid getting killed.
 * Finally, I don't recall it ever being stated that disruptor torpedoes are only mounted on fighters. The Codex says disruptor torpedoes are the primary armament for fighters, but that doesn't mean there can't be disruptor torpedoes on larger vessels as well. You also have to consider that they may not be disruptor torpedoes at all. The "missile like things" may be Javelin projectiles, which are clearly stated to be used by larger vessels.
 * Again, I'm really not the best person to ask, but I hope this helped some. SpartHawg948 23:11, February 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * There was an old post on the Bioware forums by one of the game's writers, who also contributed a lot to the wiki, explaining that the cutscene in the battle isn't actually supposed to be representative of the technology in the game's universe. To quote, "So, despite what you see in the cutscenes, missiles are not used in Mass Effect space combat. Anything you saw that you interpreted as a missile was a hallucination caused by Sovereign's indoctrination of you. Please consult a qualified medical specialist." &mdash;Seburo 23:31, February 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but that's more CYA than anything. The last two sentences pretty much scream that the entire entry is meant to be taken at least partially in jest. SpartHawg948 00:43, February 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the writers that's on here now, might be the same one (not sure), said that there was something of a breakdown in communications between the writing team and the cinematics team, at least on the nitty-gritty. So I probably wouldn't count the Battle of the Citadel as indicative of ME space battles. Here's to hoping that there's another good one in ME3! Compare it to Star Wars... Battle of Yavin was a good space battle, then Battle of Endor in the third one. Mmm, Endor. (Please no Death Stars in Mass Effect, Reapers are scary enough.) Boter 01:51, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the exact post that I linked to and was quoting. The post was by Chris L'Etoile, who goes by Stormwaltz on here. &mdash;Seburo 02:31, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Why the snark?
Are all admins on this wiki this combative? &mdash;fodigg (talk) | 22:06, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Combative enough to offer to apologize if they indeed insulted your reading comprehension skills, as you alleged? I sure hope so! Look, you called my point of view absurd and arbitrary, hardly polite, and then when I attempt to make my position known on another matter, you go ahead and assume you know my position already without simply offering me a chance to elaborate. I can be combative at times, but I'm never preemptively so. I only give as good as I get. And again, I did offer to apologize. SpartHawg948 05:49, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Romance section formatting
The problem with having all the pictures grouped together is that the text then becomes very confusing. Before I edited the page it had the text separated by pictures (though the order was a bit messed up). When the pictures are spaced throughout the text there is some context and reference to the characters being talked about. Compare the way it's done in the ME1 Romance section of that article, for example. Bronzey 10:34, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Compare it to a section with one third as many subjects? Not much of a comparison (btw, HUGE pet peeve of mine- there is NO SUCH THING as ME1. There's Mass Effect, aka ME, and Mass Effect 2, aka ME2. There is no game called Mass Effect 1. Now that I'm done and can climb down off this soapbox...). There seems to be a decent amount of context as is, what with sections that start with sentences such as "for a male Shepard they are:", and "for a female Shepard they are:". And as for references to the characters being referred to, the names are given both in the description, and below the image. It's as simple as going "Miranda... which one is Miranda? Oh! This lady with the name Miranda under the picture!" Even I can manage that right now, which is nothing short of miraculous, given how tired I am! The current format isn't perfect, but it looks a damn sight better then the other way... mincy little ribbons of images with big, unappealing globs of text strewn in between. Unfortunately, given that there are three times the options, formatting it the same way as the ME section isn't doable. SpartHawg948 10:40, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Definition of drug

 * A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction.


 * A substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body.


 * Something and often an illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousness.


 * A drug, broadly speaking, is any substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function.

Ethanol fits all of these definitions, please note that what one government's law says another government's says different. Please provide references proving that alcohol is not a drug. As far as I know all scientific and medical communities recognize ethanol as a legal drug along with tobacco (harmine and nicotine) and caffeine. C6541 01:25, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * But again, as I stated in my edit summary, for legal purposes, alcohol is generally categorized separately. Refer to Alcoholic beverage. It is true that ethanol is a depressant, but it is also true that while a majority of states criminalize usage of most drugs, a majority of states also allow legal usage of both alcohol and tobacco. I never stated anything about the scientific and medical communities. The article was describing actions Harkin had taken that resulted in disciplinary problems for him, and it distinguished between drugs and alcohol because, while drug use is illegal in and of itself, alcohol consumption is legal, but Harkin engaged in alcohol abuse which, while legal, had deleterious effects on his career. I never stated that alcohol is not a drug, just that it is legally distinct, and the context of the article made this distinction necessary. SpartHawg948 01:50, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright I get you, cheers. C6541 01:59, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

ME2 Article Overhaul and Integration of Templates
Just want to get your input on User talk:DRY.

Race Boxes
We are arguing over one small aspect of the race boxes, which only affects 4 of the races. It is hardly grounds to scrap them all completely. If you have such an enormous problem with it, all we have to do is remove the Citadel Status line. -Saren72 21:42, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a few problems with it- 1) The Citadel status lines on all the boxes are either A) Speculative, B) Incorrect, or C) Really vague due to canon issues (depending on which race it is), at least one of the boxes had no reason to exist (the Keepers box), as it was full of unknowns, and 3) There is nothing in the boxes that isn't easily learned by reading a few sentences into the articles. Nothing. Oh, and 4) Did you run this by an admin? We ask that before major changes to the articles like this are undertaken, we at least have some knowledge of it. For example, when the character infobox change was being discussed, it was debated for several weeks, with several users and admins having input. We really ask that users not just take it upon themselves to do this stuff on a whim. SpartHawg948 21:47, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know what to say...
http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Morinth_Samara%3D_SEXY_CATFIGHT!!

Enough said.


 * I have to say, while it would be AWESOME to have a page dedicated to Morinth and Samara's sexy catfight (maybe with some video of it in slow motion, with the appropriate catfight noises added) I just don't see it in the cards... :( SpartHawg948 22:14, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Just got a Trojan from this site about 2 hours ago
some popup I accidentally clicked on installed a trojan "Paladin Antivirus Software," complete with a rootkit that disabled my regular antivirus stuff. Was using firefox, was definitely from this site. I know you have nothing to do with it, but thought i'd drop a line here since I just saw your message.--Slothen 06:25, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Sovereign
could you direct me to the charector dialogue sub pages
 * There currently isn't one for Sovereign, so you'd have to create one. And I have no experience with those, as they are a relatively new feature and I wasn't really involved in their creation. Best bet would be DRY. SpartHawg948 07:08, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * The link would be Sovereign/Unique dialogue. The Sovereign page proper should be updated with a link if the dialogue page is created. --DRY 07:11, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * It would also be worth pointing out that, unlike the little one-liners and purely scripted conversations that people have been putting on the subpages, the conversation between Sovereign and Shepard that you included is only one of many possible conversations, as there are a lot of dialogue choices that affect what is said and when. I know that none of the conversations any of my Shepards had with Sovereign went like the one you posted. SpartHawg948 07:14, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

yeah unfortunately i used a video for that dialogue and the person filming chose the middle option out of the 3 each tine until the end where you can use the dialogue options on the left to get more infomation. II Nazara II

Edit warring on Reaper
Two IPs (which appear to be the same person) keep adding info to the Reaper page indicating that they are descended from cuttlefish. They need to be warned and/or blocked, this has gone on all day: If I knew where Wikia's kept their equivalent of WP:AIV, or how they handle warnings, I'd do that, but I don't, so I just pulled you off the top of the blocklist. ShadowRanger 21:09, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * User talk:24.247.114.135
 * User talk:216.120.170.5


 * BTW, the second IP picked up after the first, acting as if it were a different person, though IP lookup indicates the same geographical location. Likely an IP sock. ShadowRanger 21:11, February 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have actually already spoken to the first individual (assuming they are two different individuals) so I'll take a looksee at this, see what I can do. Also, good call on picking me! I tend to be the stricter and less generous of the two admins currently doing the lion's share of the blocking. :) SpartHawg948 22:02, February 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, I still strongly oppose one year IP blocks: an initial 3 day ban is plenty to start off with. Most idiots have short attention spans. (Spambots are a different story, obviously.) --DRY 23:23, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough... I really do need to get away from doing those, as they were supposed to be phased out at some point... So, starting in March (aka in 5 days) no more 1 year bans. Although I'm not going to lie, I don't do 3-days. If they vandalize and I see it, it's 2 weeks. SpartHawg948 23:44, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I can get on board with that. I'll do the same thing, for consistency. --DRY 23:46, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * You know what? Screw the first of March, I'll just start doing it now. (Take that, First of March!!!) SpartHawg948 23:48, February 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Besides the obvious IP lookup which reveals the same location, I did a search on 24.247.114.135 and found this: Halo Wikia Talk. 24.247.114.135 mentioned something and 216.120.170.5 appears to "back him up". Serial puppet sock I'd say. Teugene 02:38, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Good looking out! SpartHawg948 05:25, February 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yet another one - The geth rule causes another "revert war" --silverstrike 18:03, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed. I have since spoken to the aforementioned user, and think that this problem should be solved. Is it truly? Only time will tell... :) SpartHawg948 04:23, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I found 81.102.105.188 changes to the Volus article somewhat amusing (I blame the lack of sleep), this user needs to be dealt with... --silverstrike 12:54, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Done and done! SpartHawg948 20:43, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Yes i am sorry about causing a revert war i was mistakenThe geth rule 06:14, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. We got it all sorted out, so now everything is good to go! SpartHawg948 06:25, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Multiple Discussions of the same topic in Discussion tabs
I have noticed the tendency for people to make new discussion topics when the core topic is already discussed on same Discussion Tab. I would like to know if it is okay to clean up the Discussion Tabs so that the topics are grouped together and the conversations kept separate so as to not lose the pace of the talks. -- (Lone Hunter)
 * By convention, editing of existing talk page content is not condoned. You are free, of course, to add see links or similar as new comments in existing sections. --DRY 18:33, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup yup. I don't know why I even bother checking this stuff anymore. DRY is always at least three steps ahead of me! He is, of course, correct that it is a big no-no to edit talk pages. And he's pretty much right about everything else, so I'm mainly commenting now to appeal to my own vanity. I do love the sound of my own voice, or whatever the text version of that would be... :P SpartHawg948 21:12, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Editing others' talk page comments?
You left me a warning, but I'm honestly confused here. Where did I do this? I'm generally very careful to not edit anyone else's comments. ShadowRanger 22:45, February 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking through my history, I see two things you might be referring to:
 * I have added unsigned tags to a few comments to indicate the original poster, solely for clarity
 * In this diff, I might have accidentally broken up a comment from one user. A lot of people weren't signing or indenting, so it's possible I split a post in half, thinking the top half was a separate message from the bottom half
 * Aside from that, all I've done is occasionally add headers to sections that lack them so as to allow the ToC to appear in the appropriate place and do its job. ShadowRanger 22:50, February 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * No, in the one I'm referring to, which I just informed you of on your talk page, you definitely removed comments left by two editors, one of them an admin. SpartHawg948 22:52, February 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * I responded on my talk. If you don't mind, I'd just as soon keep the rest of the thread in one place. ShadowRanger 22:56, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Wrapping up
I just want to say, I hold absolutely no grudges over our disagreement, and I hope I did not offend. I recognize the reasons for the rule, and while I disagree with your interpretation, I nevertheless consider your viewpoint valid. Please, accept my apologies for any consternation I have caused; we both want to improve the wiki, and when two people like that disagree, it can get heated. ShadowRanger 00:15, February 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to lie, you did offend with your comment labeling me a "well-meaning martinet". I never got heated, nor did I resort to any sort of name-calling or veiled insults (martinet being a derogatory term, "well-meaning" or no). And stating it was "civil disobedience" implies that I am enforcing some sort of draconian law that calls for civil disobedience, which is hardly appreciated. SpartHawg948 00:19, February 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm... Just checked your user page and discovered you're an air force staff sergeant. So I can understand how you might take it a bit personally, given it's relationship to your real world profession. To clarify, your interpretation of what I meant by "well-meaning martinet" was spot on, except I did not intend to imply that the laws you were enforcing were outrageous or draconian, which I believe is where the majority of the pejorative sense of the word comes from. I don't actually know the Wikia specific rules, so I follow the general guidelines I've learned on Wikipedia. Technically, even Wikipedia has a guideline (though not a policy) that agrees with you (archiving is preferable to deletion), but people regularly ignore it for trivial stuff such as the small bits I deleted, presumably under WP:IAR (which I happen to think is an absolutely essential rule of any wiki, so long as it is used sparingly and not abused).
 * Consider my comment on "civil disobedience" hyperbole; I'm no Rosa Parks (and I really hate it when people call themselves the "Rosa Parks" of anything); I was having a little fun and got carried away. ShadowRanger 00:51, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * So, basically, you didn't mean to imply that I was enforcing outrageous and draconian laws, but you did mean to imply that I'm a well-meaning but misguided disciplinarian. Thanks. That's a huge improvement. Now it's not an insult directed at me and this site's rules (many of which I had a hand in writing), it's just an insult directed at me. That makes me feel so much better. Also, please note that this is a wikia, not Wikipedia. We do not have an Ignore All Rules clause. Were there such a clause at the central Wikia, we would not be compelled to acknowledge or implement it, as admins of individual wikis are given considerable lee-way in determining how their wikis are run. And one last note, Air Force is capitalized, as it's an organization, and Staff Sergeant is capitalized, as it is a rank. I know it wasn't intended, but it is considered a sign of disrespect to refer to someone's rank without the proper capitalization. SpartHawg948 03:58, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation
Heya! I'm the guy who edited the AI Hacking discussion page. Decided to take you up on your suggestion.

I probably won't edit much more. I just get tired of how often people dismiss AI Hacking in ME2. It's only situationally useful, but a) Those situations are more common than I think some people state, and 2) My god it's good when it's useful. It ruins cover, eliminates an enemy, assists in destroying others.

Thanks again,

JackSlack 03:40, February 26, 2010 (UTC), dedicated Engineer

Reapers
Just wanted to know how big do u think a reaper is The geth rule 22:04, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, a million bajillion miles long? :P No, the derelict one encountered in ME2 was stated to be 2 kilometers in length, so that would seem to be a good baseline, but as for other dimensions like height and width, I really have no idea. Just guesstimating, but if it's 2 km long, then maybe about .75-1km in height, and about .5-.75km across? SpartHawg948 22:07, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

o ok thanks that sounds hugeThe geth rule 22:09, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

honestly i dont know how the galaxy can even stop like hundreds of thousands of reapers even with shepardThe geth rule 22:12, February 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Through sheer force of will combined with Shepard's undeniable awesomeness! :P SpartHawg948 22:20, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Ok that might workThe geth rule 22:24, February 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, don't forget. Shepard isn't the only one who can save the galaxy... he's just taking care of the light work while the real badass extraordinaire takes care of more important things! SpartHawg948 22:28, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Hell yeahThe geth rule 22:32, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Just didn't realized!
Lol, don't need to sound so harsh. I didn't realize it was a link! (Referring to the edit in Keeper's page)Teugene 17:10, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to sound harsh, just exasperated. Rather than deleting three letters, which was what you said you were doing, you nearly doubled the length of the link. It just didn't make any sense to me. SpartHawg948 19:55, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I didn't realized it was a link. Maybe I should have more rest instead! I will keep in mind and make sure it's a link I'm editing ;) Teugene 04:22, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Editing 'Mass Effect 3' Page
I see you've got right on that one - thanks! Though it is actually surprisingly hard to edit it as it's locked :P. I'm assuming this is deliberate, but if not then now you know. And you know what G.I. Joe says. FridgeRaider88 21:04, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I did not know. But now I know, and knowing is half the battle. Although in the future, this sort of stuff is what talk pages are for, such as Talk:Mass Effect 3. The problem log is more for problems involving formatting and such. Images not displaying correctly and whatnot. Problems with text can either be edited, or noted on talk pages. SpartHawg948 21:13, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I responded to that PR without realizing that User:Tullis had protected it. (Sorry.) Her note says "until after ME2 comes out", so I assume we can open the floodgates (although perhaps touch base with Tullis first). --DRY 21:20, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just left her a message about it. I'm also in favor of removing the protection. SpartHawg948 21:29, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

@SpartHawg948: Duly noted. I'll be on the prowl for more naughty, naughty grammar fail. I'm a bit of a pedant :( FridgeRaider88 21:28, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

ME 2 Weapons
I just wanted to know what do u think is the best weapon in ME 2.(Or your favorite weapon)The geth rule 22:34, March 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Best depends on what you want to do with it, but my favorites are- the M-15 Vindicator, the M-9 Tempest, and the Widow Anti-Material Rifle, and as for the funnest, I'd have to say the M-490 Blackstorm Projector. SpartHawg948 00:25, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

O cool my favorites are the geth pulse rifle the m622 avalanche and the widow anti material rifleThe geth rule 21:47, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledged
Point taken. Henceforth I shall refer to Mass Effect by its proper title. I need not stoop to satisfy the freeloaders and unregistered contributors with elementary clarification. Incrognito 06:08, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me! Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using ME1 or Mass Effect 1 in forums or on talk pages. It still bugs the hell out of me when I see it used there, but I'm here to enforce the rules, and one of the rules is that just because it bugs the hell out of me, doesn't make it illegal! :P In articles, however, ME1 is a no-no. SpartHawg948 06:27, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Infobox colors
In order to standardize the wiki colors, I have started altering the infobox for planet to show the more preferable dark colors. I posted a comment on the planet template talk page with an example - any objections for the change? --silverstrike 18:29, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Military
Just read your user page and i am in the naval reserveThe geth rule 22:29, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

My Dwindling Sanity
Hey SpartHawg, i am making a judgement about your interests based on your name, and that assumption is that you are a halo fan. Recently I have spent some time on the halopedia wiki, after ten minutes i realized that many of the people on the wiki are huge jerks and cannot grasp simple concepts, like the halos not killing the flood and the forerunners being human. And I was hoping that you being undoubtedly most intelligent people on the internet would share your opinion on these two subjects, also on the subject of halo legends (because all halo fans seem to revile it, and use every small continuity error to say it ruined the universe), for all it did wrong at least i feel it at least gave a very cool design for the forerunners, their outfits allowed the perfect level of vagueness to make them appear alien, noble, and even human all at once. Please Give me your opinions on those two subjects, because the insane things said by the community on halopedia are damaging my sanity. ralok 22:36, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, here's what I've got. First, kudos to you for being (as far as I can remember) the first person to deduce that the Spart part of my username is a Halo reference. Most people seem to assume it's a reference to Sparta or the Spartans of ancient Greece when it is, in fact, a reference to the SPARTAN II Program. If I had some sort of prize to bestow, you'd get it! As for the topics in question:
 * Of course the Halo rings don't kill the Flood! Anybody who says that they do is... well, let's just say they're misguided. It's explicitly stated in-game that the rings kill the Floods food. However, I will say that I'm not so sure about the incomplete installation that was fired on the Ark. That one does seem to have taken out the Flood, likely due to the fact that it was incomplete and as such was not calibrated to only take out life sufficient to sustain the Flood.
 * As for the humans, it does seem that they are, in fact Forerunners (or descendants of the Forerunners). The part when 343 Guilty Spark says to the Chief "You are Forerunner" seems to make that clear. At least to me, it does.
 * Finally, I honestly haven't seen Halo Legends yet. I saw a preview of one of the films, but haven't seen it yet. When I do, (which will hopefully be soon) I'll have an opinion! :) SpartHawg948 00:07, March 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response, it certainly helps knowing that at least one other person awknowledges these obvious facts. There are some contradictions in halo lore, but there is also easy retcons for these. the first issue is that it appears humans were already on earth when the forerunners were around, is it impossible that this population was descended from shipwrecked individuals, or that perhaps some memebrs of the species just wanted to live modestly. And with the flood being destroyed by the halos, my theory is that the halos were based on a neural suppresent technology the forerunners used to keep other species grounded (kind of a grim idea). These are the obvious retcons, that is part of the fan bases job with any science fiction universe, to think of ways that things can work, not to dismiss obvious parts of the continuity. Look at star wars, most retcons evolve out of the fan made and accepted explanation. Anyways keep an open mind towards halo legends, visually it isnt very true to the continuity but but the story is at least 79% accurate, which is ok, really the best part is seeing the portrayel of the forerunners, very cool looking. ralok 00:38, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Semantic MediaWiki?
Does this wiki use Semantic MediaWiki? I'm just reading about it, and it seems pretty cool. There is a lot of information here, and I could see the benefits of being able to utilize querys.--Karstedt 01:16, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Currently the semantic wiki is not installed on Wikia. You can make the suggestion at central.wikia.com, but I doubt they'll install it. On a side note, the information found on the site is a bit misleading to those that don't know anything about the Semantic Web. --silverstrike 02:40, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Deleted trivia that was interesting!
It was discovered that Ashley Williams was originally able to be a romantic partner to a male OR female Shepard, there was a video and everything showing dialogue for it. I don't know why it was deleted as it's essentially the same the Trivia stating originally Legion was to be recruited earlier. I don't know if you removed it but I was just curious to why it would be removed. - DaLucster72 06:00, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ask whoever it was who deleted it, because it sure wasn't me. SpartHawg948 06:04, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Well it's back on lol, I swear this site is trying to trick me or something, just for future reference how do you know who deleted your contributions?
 * By checking the page history. At the top of every page, right next to the "edit this page" button is one labeled "history", which gives you a history of all edits made to that page, when they were made, and who made them. SpartHawg948 06:09, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Dealt with it. It was an IP. --DRY 06:11, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Heretics on Reaper page
"...worshiped as gods by the geth heretics, a faction of geth who believed that..." I understand that it needs to be specific, that's why I added ", a faction of geth..." personally, I think it was specific enough. I have no problem with the edit, it sounds fine. I just wonder if it was really needed. --Effectofthemassvariety 08:13, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup. Because, as I said in the edit summary, heretics means people who disagree with the established beliefs of a church or religion. Does that definition in any way, shape, or form fit the geth being referenced? Nope. It sure doesn't. They are geth who differ from the views of the geth as a whole (who are not an established relegion) and worship the Reapers as gods. As the geth heretics are not heretics, I felt it best to rectify the inaccurate description. SpartHawg948 08:20, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the two versions, I see that changing it sounds better anyways. --Effectofthemassvariety 05:27, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Proper noun for Husk?
I originally posted this in this Manual of Style talk page but don't seem to be getting any replies. My question was, is the Husk also a capitalized name? It seems that some pages has it capitalized and some don't. Case in point is in the Husk page where all instances of "Husk" are capitalized but in some other pages (eg, N7: Abandoned Mine), it is not. Just wanna get the admins' opinions on this consistency issue. Also while on this topic, perhaps the Commander gender section in the manual should be updated to capitalize "commander", as it is indicated as a proper noun by you in one of your previous edit. - Teugene 15:24, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Creation of a community board
I made a proposal for a new feature that can help organize information on the wiki. My proposal is located on DRY talk page and I will appreciate if you could take a look and give me your input. Thanks :) --silverstrike 18:55, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * PROPOSAL DENIED!!! :P Seriously though, I just woke up and am not really up to this at the moment, and here in a little bit I've got about 9 hours of classes... joy. I'll take a peek tonight though. SpartHawg948 19:49, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Left a little one-line blurb on DRY's talk page. Basically, it looks promising. SpartHawg948 09:16, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

An IP to watch when and if they return
I just thought you might like to know that 151.166.15.115 visited the Dragon Age Wiki to spread their delightful message of American moon ownership. Since I can apparently "thank you" for their edits, I shall, for giving me a bemused smile at the things vandals get up to. Good luck surviving the mayhem that is post release. Loleil 10:17, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Planet types
I'm of two minds about this whole worldtype categorization thing. On the one hand, it's entirely extra-canonical. (I think Throwback lifted the ME:2 ones from the Prima guide; I don't think that there's any "official" source for ME at all.) On the other hand, if we're going to avoid confusion and the inevitable revert churn, we should probably get him to post his criteria on the Mass Effect Wiki:Manual of Style/Planets. On the other, other hand, I'm kind of reluctant to give it any kind of official sanction since it's just one more pointless detail to police. (If it were up to me, the sidebars would only include information which actually appeared on the in-game planet description screens, but that's just me. At least then there'd be no grey area about whether there were satellites, colonies, or atmospheric pressure and there'd be no smegging Keppler Ratios.... But I've been having a rotten week all around, so I'm not feeling especially charitable.) What's your take? For my part I think I'm just going to stop policing worldtype edits. --DRY 22:01, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Featured quote
Political affiliation aside, I belive you have misinterpreted Sen. Harry Reid's comment. From what I read, he was not labeling anyone in particular as villains in the past, moreso stating the argument for progress in American society. The correlation between the past events and the present, as I read it, is that there are a certain few people impeding what will eventually be seen as necessary development for the betterment of the people. Rather than demonizing Republicans for their standing throughout history, the senator is simply hoping that listeners (or readers, in this case) can relate these past events with the situation at hand, as a significant change that will inevitably better the country despite the reservations of some. Another thing to note is that originally, the "republican" party was the liberal voice of the people. I haven't looked into the timeline of that relative to the events you mentioned, but just as a reminder that a glance can just as easily mislead you as inform you. Ev0lve 22:15, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the way I see it, Reid was trying to demonize the Republicans by comparing them to pro-slavery forces and those opposed to civil rights and women's suffrage hoping that no on would call him on it. At the same time, he's trying to equate transforming our current health-care system into a hellish bureaucracy with noble movements such as the anti-slavery movement and the civil rights and women's suffrage movements, and he deserves to be called to the mat on it. Imagine how he would have screamed if Republicans had equated those opposed to the war in Iraq with the pro-slavery movement. Reid was being disingenuous and ignorant (as usual) so I called him on it.


 * As for the statement that "originally, the "republican" party was the liberal voice of the people.", it still is the voice of classical liberalism, and has been since it's inception. It's just not the voice of big-government, tax-and-spend, we know better than you how to spend your money, America is evil and our foes are good liberalism. SpartHawg948 22:31, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * While your perspective is certainly a valid possibility, it isn't possible for either of us to ascertain implicitly what he meant with the comparison. I consider myself an impartial observer, being not only a supporter of neither party but also a foreign citizen. When you already have a negative impression of a speaker, you are far more likely to view those comments in a negative light. I'm not saying this is wrong, necessarily, but it is a psychological bias. The idea is similar to that of a preemptive strike - "attack them, before they attack us" also includes the often unspoken "because that's what I would do in their place," potentially distorting reality with disastrous consequences. Also, I find it harder to connect the justification of the Iraq war with the mentioned movements, as it is significantly more than an internal societal issue - though I do understand your point behind it. While it is conceivable that Reid was hoping to use the strong emotional reactions attached to those events in history to give his argument weight, without context there is nothing to implicate that as his intent. Ev0lve 22:46, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * True. Fortunately, Reid gives plenty of context for us to work with. Peruse comments he has made in the past, and you learn that he possesses one of the worst cases of foot-in-mouth disorder in recorded history, as well as a track record of vicious and malicious attacks on his political foes. He's been caught many times simply making things (and people) up in his comments. As someone who is much more familiar with this piece of work than I'd like to be, I was speaking with plenty of contextual support. And for the record, like yourself I am a supporter of neither the Republicans nor the Democrats, though if pressed I will side with the Republicans as a result of my love of A) Classical Liberalism, and B) Personal freedom, including the freedom to spend my money how I wish and not be forced to pay for things I find morally reprehensible. Reid stands in direct opposition to both of these things that I love. SpartHawg948 22:54, March 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the stance on the quote, this one will likely be gone tomorrow. It superseded the previous quote by Patton after two days, and I'm actively trying to decide what to put up next. I've got plenty to choose from, including quotes by several British Prime Ministers, a couple of Presidents (and Presidents you don't hear much from, either!), a presidential nominee, a former Senator, a former Governor, a South American strongman (no, not that blowhard Hugo Chavez, although I did try to find a good quote of him claiming the earthquake in Haiti was caused by a US earthquake weapon), a German Chancellor, a couple of generals, a couple of historians, an Athenian strategos, and a leader of the women's suffrage movement in the United States! Decisions, decisions. SpartHawg948 23:05, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

In any case, there's nothing I enjoy more than an eloquent argument or discussion, though the former are far less common. I appreciate when people use more than just emotions to dictate a point (also uncommon). Maybe I'll drop by more often! Ev0lve 23:15, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed! A good, intellectually stimulating discussion is always nice. I hope you do drop in more often! Not to boast, but this is a pretty awesome site, and honestly, one of the reasons it's so great is because of the community. There are a few bad apples every now and then (vandals and the like) but by and large, a great group of people, who (generally) can manage to disagree without being disagreeable should it come to that. Also, just got a few more quotes lined up, from the Hippocratic Oath and the Constitution of a country other than the US (not saying which one yet though, don't want to ruin the surprise!). SpartHawg948 23:24, March 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Did I say tomorrow? Tomorrow as in the 7th? (as I stated it'd be changed tomorrow on the 6th) Well, by tomorrow, I meant the 8th! Keep a nice two-day rotation going for now. And I think I nailed down the next quote to be used. It's looking like it'll be by Victor Davis Hanson, a phenomenal historian, classicist, columnist, political commentator, author (on topics as far-flung as the Peloponnesian War, agriculture, the decline of classical education in today's schools, immigration, etc.), farmer, you name it! One of my favorite authors of all time! SpartHawg948 08:55, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

World Type - Fixing
Message sent, comprehended, and return of acknowledgment sent. You can stop now.
 * Beg pardon? I can stop what now? (and when was it that I started needing your permission to start or stop anything?) SpartHawg948 23:21, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * You are against world type. I get that. I placed a deletion tag on all the planet-type category pages. You can kill those like the other pages. That's what I am saying. End of line.Throwback 23:24, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. But again, I can stop what now? You said "You can stop now." without elaborating on what it was I could stop. I asked what it was I should stop, and you refrained from answering. So again, what can I stop now? And, BSG references aside, it's not the end of line just because you say so, as my furtherance of this thread would seem to suggest. SpartHawg948 23:26, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * End of line comes from Tron. You can stop changing the world type. Man, you can't read can you? I say in the title World Type - Fixing. What else could I be referencing?Throwback 23:32, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * End of line is also used in the reimagined Battlestar Galactica, a reference arguably more recognizable than Tron. As for my reading comprehension, I haven't done any world type fixing in a day or so, so I wasn't sure what was being referenced. And "World Type - Fixing" is hardly descriptive, especially given that your comments suggested that you were fixing the world types, implying that World Type - Fixing was intended to refer to your actions, not anything I had done. If you want your statements interpreted correctly, don't be so vague. And, for the last time, watch the insulting language to others. It's obvious I can read, based on this page and my legible responses to your typed comments. I can also read the Community Guidelines, which state that rude or insulting language towards other users will get you banned. SpartHawg948 23:37, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Modding
Would a page discussing modding in Mass Effect and ME 2 be appropriate for this wiki? I figure it might be a useful guide since not many people know that modding is possible (though only through direct alterations of the game's coalesced.ini file). It could possibly even include instructions on how to mod. Bastian964 04:20, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to say that something like that would be suitable for the Forum. It's not in-game or "encyclopedic" content, but it is still useful information, and it would be nice to have around somewhere. SpartHawg948 04:46, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, we have a "modding" article for ME (two of 'em actually): PC Tweaks/PC Cheats --silverstrike 12:42, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well there you go! Shows what I know! :P SpartHawg948 12:43, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Timeline overhaul
There hasn't been any comment on the timeline proposal in about a week, and what issues were brought up have been addressed. Shall we wrap up the proceedings and do the overhaul? Let me know if there's any last-minute things in the timeline that need fixing, I'll get to those later today (if possible, I've got a Spanish presentation to finish for tomorrow). -- Commdor (Talk) 17:49, March 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it really has kind of tapered off, hasn't it? Go ahead and do the overhaul. SpartHawg948 19:47, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Mass Effect Walkthrough
When I was reading through the comments on the Talk:Collector Base: Infiltration, I noticed that DRY made some comments that made me think that there should be main articles on each of the Mass Effect plot worlds, and the guide should not be it. I left DRY a message but he hasen't responded yet so I would like your opinion on the topic. Lancer1289 March 9, 2010 06:33 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I'm reading your question correctly. You're asking if there should be articles for each of the plot worlds? There are already, aren't there? Freedom's Progress, Horizon, Haestrom, etc, all have their own articles already. Or were you meaning something else? SpartHawg948 06:43, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I ment to say that I though DRY was meaning that each major plot world mission in Mass Effect, not Mass Effect 2, should have its own mission article. Most of the information for the walkthrough for each world is split between the planet article itself and the Mass Effect Walkthrough. I think that he wants to streamline the Mass Effect walkthrough with an article for each of the missions that take place on the plot worlds. (i.e. Noveria: Geth Interst, Feros: Geth Attack) But I could be misunderstanding what he wants. Lancer1289 March 9, 2010 06:53 (UTC)
 * I still don't know if I'm getting it. The Mass Effect walkthrough looks fine to me. I don't see anything that you'd need to go to another article for, all the info seems to be right there. I don't see any split information. If there really is something being left out, that's one thing, but I don't see any point in creating a bunch of new articles that aren't going to contain anything that isn't already in the walkthrough. SpartHawg948 07:01, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * When the walkthrough is put next to the walkthrough for Mass Effect 2, the ME2 walkthrough is broken up with links to the main pages. I think that is what DRY wants. You have to read is comment on the talk page, but I wish he has responded to my question on his talk page so I know what he ment. As you said before the planets where the missions of Mass Effect 2 take place have only theri descriptions and any trivia associated with the planet. While Therum, Noveria], etc also have information for the walkthrough. Again I wish DRY has responded so I knew what he ment by his comments, but maybe he wants to break up the walkthrough to make it more user friendly and more like the ME2 walkthrough. But again I could be misunderstanding what he wants. Lancer1289 March 9, 2010 7:16 (UTC)
 * DRY repsonded and I agree with him that the walkthrough for Mass Effect could be broken up a little. Personally I think the style of the Mass Effect 2 walkthrough is easier to manage and navigate. I also noticed the poor condition of most of the pages covering the assignments from Mass Effect. I'll pull information from the guide and from the planet articles and see what I can do with them. Lancer1289 March 9, 2010 15:34 (UTC)
 * All right. Personally I preferred the Mass Effect Guide to the Mass Effect 2 Guide, as I found the ME Guide easier on the eyes, but whatever... SpartHawg948 19:34, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * What I was suggesting was that each mission have its own page where the nitty gritty details could live, if necessary (lists of enemies, where exactly to find everythihg, alternate strategies &mdash; that sort of thing). That would free up the main walkthrough to flow more freely and rid it of excessive detail. But I'm by no means adamant about it. --DRY 19:42, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * That is what I intend to do with the articles. Write tactics and really get the details of where all the crates, items, and anything can be found. If the community doesn't like the articles when I or someone else writes and posts them, then we can remove them. You can see a preview of how many articles I plan to write on my user page. But I do see the Mass Effect Guide as clutered compared to the Mass Effect 2 Guide. Lancer1289 20:42 March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, sir
Yeah, I'm the one who made that entry on Tali's page on her loyalty. I just realized a while ago it was stupid because there was a whole other page on it I didn't see. I just wanted to thank you for deleting it, makes me feel less stupid! Thanks. At least I'm assuming it was you, you were the last one to edit it... Thanks again!
 * Yeah, it was me. No worries... these things happen. SpartHawg948 04:53, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Well, either way, nice chatting with you.

Praetorian on the Collecter Vessel
Any tips? I keep getting my face destroyed, because some idiot husk goes "LOLOLOLOL" *tap* CRITICAL MISSION FAILURE

And, I fail to see a safe spot from the Praetorian, AND the Collectors at the same time, maybe that should be pulled off the page?

Subject Delta :D

My name's from Bioshock, normally I only use this account on the Bioshock 2 wiki.


 * I usually use the Collector Particle Beam, although on my last playthrough I did it as an Engineer, with Warp Ammo as my bonus talent, and suddenly Praetorians were no challenge at all! As for cover, I've never found it hard to find cover. Just clear the Collectors out first, and then hop from one spot to another while fighting the Praetorian. As for a safe spot, I'm not sure what they're referring to, I'd have to take a looksee. SpartHawg948 07:00, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Removing My Comments from the Wiki
Is there a way that you or the other admins can erase my comments in the talk pages as I wish them not to be recorded for 'posterity'? My opinons are those of an ignorant am haaretz, and I don't want them contaminating this wiki. I am sure someone of your advanced writing skills can successfully accomplish this with careful and creative editing. Throwback 10:45, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Now, now, let's not be hasty. Just because you've had some disagreements with individuals is no reason to quit the site. Nor is it a reason to denigrate yourself with such terms. I hardly find you to be an ignoramus or a boor, just someone with strongly held opinions, and there's a lot to be said for that. (and in an aside, while I do like the term "am haaretz", I'm more a fan of hoi polloi, but that's just me. Gotta love those Greeks!) I suppose if you really want it done it could be, but it wouldn't be an instantaneous process, and the comments wouldn't be "gone", just off the active page. Anyone could still see them in the page history. If this is really what you want, fine, I'll probably want to run it by the other admins, as this is a bit unprecedented, but we can probably work something out, but again, don't be too hasty. SpartHawg948 10:51, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * This is what I want. I am completing the process of removing the links I have made on the planet pages and I am in the process of orphaning the planet-type category pages. I would you also like you to kill these pages.Throwback 10:57, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * So be it... I'll see about starting the proverbial paperwork and making the (also proverbial) phone calls. SpartHawg948 10:59, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

A favor
Dont group people who want government health care even on the same list as nazi, just because a group is wrong (i am not saying they are right or wrong i am going to try and be neutral towards the issue itself) doesnt mean their hearts arent in the right place, there are huge differences beetween neo-nazis and health care folks, one group wants a large number of other people dead for inexplicable reason, and the other group wants a large group of people to continue living. And they can dfinitly get overzealous on the issue, and because of that they can ignore obvious errors, but keep in mind they have their hearts in the right place, but neo-nazi i dont thin they even have hearts. Really all i am saying is there is a fine line beetween people who care, and people who want to murder.ralok 20:11, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a fine line indeed... and it's an even finer line to a very Orthodox Catholic like myself, who sees some elements of the proposed government-run health-care as tantamount to state-sponsored murder. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and I expressed mine in an appropriate venue. SpartHawg948 20:14, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

It isnt my place to tell you what to beleive but there are some things to consider, and this is coming from a man who has studied many religions and schools of thought. First consider that maybe the government wants its people alive and healthy, that maybe its more profitable for corporations to keep people sick rather than to cure an illness. The corporations are causing people to die now. I would personally think that a government should be responsible for the health of its people, its no use keeping us safe from the enemies on the outside when disease rots us from the inside. The government has no use for sick people, but htat can go both ways. They could decide who dies, or they could go out of their way for a cure, a corporation has no need for a cure, to them a sick man is just a way to make money. Keep us safe from enemies from without and within, that is the job of hte government. Remember people are dying now, people are dying of diabetes and heart conditions, they arentj ust being murdered but they are having the life drained out of them slowly. You see state sponsored murder? I see all the people that are dying and suffering now. And maybe, and i stress that maybe things would be better if we put our lives in the hands of people that we already trust to keep us safe maybe less people would die. I would be willing to give it a chance to see if it would work, and it might not but such things can always be changed. And what if things would be better, what would you think then? what of your religion, i certainly cant think of any religion (and i have studied plenty) that has people suffering because of the greed of other people as something that is ok. ralok 20:27, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's it. Corporations are causing people to die here while those in countries with government run health-care flourish. Riiiiggghhhttt... That's why, whenever some high-and-mighty government official in Canada needs an operation, they come here. That's why, while US citizens go to Canada for cheap drugs, Canadian citizens come here for everything else, even stuff as simple as CAT scans and MRIs. That's why we have one of the highest life expectancies in the world. That's why our cancer survival rates are higher than just about every country with government run health-care. That's why our hospitals are so much better equipped than those of government-run facilities. Quick little fact. We have government-run health-care right now. It's called the VA. The average VA hospital is four decades older than the average private hospital, with the equipment alos correspondingly older. Wait times at the VA hospitals are measured in weeks or months, as they are in most countries with government run health-care. Want to know why health care in America is so expensive? Because of the government. The government programs (aka Medicare and Medicaid) on average only pay hospitals 80% of the cost of a procedure or treatment. How does the hospital make up it's losses? Charging individuals and insurance companies more than the procedure costs. The government is the problem, not the corporations. How many diseases has the government ever cured? Many, many less than have been cured by individuals and corporations. Don't just believe the hype. Do the research. SpartHawg948 23:36, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

And those are all very good points, and i accept some of the phylosophy you are presenting, but alot of what you are saying seems to be supposition, personally i would rather have government health care. But you seem to be under the impression that the people who want it are bad people, and that is just wrong, it is wrong on so many levels ralok 04:12, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't think they're bad people, I just think many of them are woefully ignorant of the facts and are just doing what the media tells them. People need to think for themselves. I said proponents of government-run healthcare (or government run anything, for that matter) were "people who piss me off through their own astounding ignorance." Never made a judgment call about them being good or bad. SpartHawg948 05:11, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Meh, but do try to remember that most of the points you make are at least partially speculative, and able to be argued. i am a thoroughly educated individual, i understand all viewpoints on the subject, and i personally would be willing to live with the consequences. But you cannot really know something like this unless it has been tried, to many variables to be certain, and we live in such a diverse world that any number of other cultures could actually have negative effects on the policy if enacted. Just remember that if you include me there is at least one (partially)educated and good person that beleives in the policy ralok 05:31, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Negative. All my statements are researched and based on fact. Not too long ago I did a paper on the merits (or lack thereof) of universal (aka government run) healthcare, where I pointed to statistics for cancer survival rates in the West, where the United States ranks far higher than most countries with government run health-care. The bit about Canadians coming here for treatment can be observed by watching the news. The most recent incident involved the Premier of Newfoundland coming to the United States for heart surgery. The bit on Medicare and Medicaid was similarly researched through written sources and from personal experience (although my experience was with TriCare, not Medicare, and TriCare is even worse about not paying the full price!), and the VA is based on personal experience. So np, none of my points were speculative in the least bit. All were researched or based on personal experience. SpartHawg948 05:43, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Then i will be clear, all points are speculative, someone will perform a study with contrary results to what you have read, someone will argue the opposite point. FActs are a malleable and constant changing thing, someone will have a personal experience opposite of your own, that is the way the world works, so keep in mind you can be well read oand educated on one viewpoint and find all the proof of it in the world, i garuntee somewhere you can find a study, (by a scientist even) showcasing proof of a relation beetween black people and global warming. so often facts need to be disregarded as speculative, because true facts are difficult to come by, and as far as i think government health care could at least have one aspect, one thing that many people should agree on, you should be able to go into the emergency room and get that toe sown back on without owing anyone a cent. If that is all government health care ever is i will be happy with it. . . . . . . . . . . . . maybe i should phrase it as saying, we shouldnt have to pay for sick care? my opinions are complex. ralok 05:55, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * And you can go into an emergency room right now and get a toe sewn back on regardless of your ability to pay. If a hospital denies you emergency care simply because you can't pay, you have got a major lawsuit on your hands! Again though, my entire point was that all too often, people supporting the current government health-care scheme, which involves much, much more than simple emergency care, don't know the facts. And the facts (and no, cancer survival rates aren't really malleable or speculative, they're simple statistics showing how many people with cancer die vs survive in a given country) at this time seem to stack up in favor of our current system. SpartHawg948 06:01, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Anywho, we both seem to have spoken our peace and made our points, and it has really been one of those days, so if you don't mind I'd like to just call this discussion over and done with, and we'll call it a draw. As for the drawn-out nature of this, we can just blame those darn neo-nazis! :P SpartHawg948 06:04, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone in my family who doesnt have health insurance has been denied emergency care at one point, and cancer patients are a malleable thing, do you think it is easy to record such things when so many different peopel and places control the health of a populace, it can be argued that countries with socialized health care record more cancer paitents because of the system they have in place. I cannot prove any of this, but if i had a couple of fancy letters at the end of my name someone would, dont trust statistics friend, they are a twisted sort of thing. I have some statistics that prove this (gug bad humor)ralok 06:10, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * So, does that mean we aren't just going to let this discussion be and call it a draw? Because I'd really like to just call it a draw. I could bring up my roommates many Canadian relatives, all of whom pay out-of-pocket for American health insurance so they can have access to our non-government run system because they hate their own government-run system (and I suppose I did just bring them up! :P) but I'd really just like to let this go. SpartHawg948 06:13, March 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * oh and i agree with what you jsut said it seems we were both typing at the same time though and things got wierd. ralok 06:12, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! The blasted edit conflicts strike again! :P SpartHawg948 06:13, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

So... yeah...
Apparently things happened in the general vicinity of my talk page. Lots of things. An entertaining read, I find it hilarious that the whole thing happened on my talk page and I didn't even know until about 10 minutes ago. Thanks for the compliment on my timeline work by the way, who doesn't like positive feedback? Speaking of which, let me just say that's a very informative bit on Pinochet you've got on your user page, I learned something new. -- Commdor (Talk) 20:40, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why thank you! As I stated, he wasn't the nicest guy in the world, and his government did certainly commit human rights abuses against its own people, but it also did some good, and I think it needs to be at least acknowledged. I mean, honestly: How many military dictators demand a newer, more liberal constitution setting a term limit for themselves, then holds democratic elections and, when they lose the election, step down peacefully and go on to loyally serve the new government? I can only think of one. SpartHawg948 23:38, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Some final thoughts
Thanks for getting the ball rolling on clearing my words cleared from this wiki. I don't like I how write - it's clumsy and awkward. Now, as to your philosophy, do you actually believe your children will have a better quality of life than you or your parents if this country continues practicing the philosophies of the neo-cons (neo-classical liberals)? I hope you have a plan for when a disaster strikes (there won't FEMA), for when someone burglarizes your home or your home is on fire (there won't be cops or firefighters - neo-cons believe that government shouldn't fund cops, or firefighters), for when your investments in the stock market crash during the next crash (there won't be regulations on Wall Street - this is a "free-enterprise" system, not a capitalistic one), for when you or a family member becomes sick (you will need money to pay for health care, lots of money), for when you need to send yourself or your children to college (the average tuition is increasing 6% a year - in twenty years, the average price for tuition at a college will be in the six-digit figures), etc. Of course, you do have job security as a military member. Neo-cons believe in government supporting the military. They just don't believe a government should be funding pretty much anything else. From my perspective, as a Democrat, as a firm believer in distribution of wealth, as a firm believer of a well-regulated capitalistic society, as a firm believer in universal health care, as a firm believer in a strong and affordable education, as a firm believer in government lending a helping hand to those in distress both in and out of an emergency, as a firm believer in climate change as a direct consequence of human interaction (there were people even in the 1800's who believed that human actions had an impact on the Earth and its climate), etc, I view people such as yourself as traitors to my country and I have the utmost contempt for you and your philosophies. If there comes a second civil war (or revolution) to this country, I will raise arms against you and others who believe as you do and I will attempt my damnest to kill you.Throwback 21:58, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see here... they didn't have FEMA up until 1979 and the country seemed to weather disasters fairly well before that, and I may dare say better than we have since, if FEMA's performance in the last few years is any indicator. Second, Neo-cons most certianly do want cops and firefighters. Stating otherwise is just plain ridiculous. Police and firefighters are organs of local governments, while Neo-cons are concerned with limiting the power of the federal government. The only federal firefighters I know of are firefighters in the military. I'm A-OK with Wall street crashing. It happens. It's the cycle of the economy. If a company can't swim, it sinks... or it should, anyways. These days we have the government decreeing companies "too big to fail", and propping them up with tax dollars. Health-care costs are as high as they are because of the government: On average, Medicare and Medicaid only pay hospitals and medical providers 80% of the cost of procedures, so in order to not operate at a loss, the providers pass that on to insurance companies and individuals in the form of higher costs. Ditto for college. For all the hype, college isn't vitally important to success. Just ask one of the greatest Democratic Presidents of all time, Harry Truman. What was your alma mater, Harry? Oh, right. Truman didn't have a degree. Neo-cons believe that the Federal government should do what it is empowered to do by the Constitution, and nothing else. There is that issue of the 10th Amendment. The one that states that the federal government doesn't posses any powers other than those specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution, and that all other power is delegated to the state. As for the doing your best to kill me thing, right back at you! I will remind you though, that the vast majority of the military (both officer and enlisted) is conservative. And most guns are owned by... you guessed it, conservatives!
 * Oh, and FYI, I'm not one of these "Neo-cons" you keep mentioning. I'm a Libertarian, or more specifically, what is referred to as a Libertarian Republican. SpartHawg948 23:53, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

What the? This wiki is hardly the place to bring up political views. That aside as a fellow democrat and diehard liberal I must say this, you are one of the most extreme political crazies I have ever read. Seriously you are as bad as or slightly worse than Palin (just on the opposite side). What kind of person says to another person that they are traitors and should be killed simply for their beliefs? The answer, a despicable one.Bastian964 22:23, March 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * That being said, I hope SpartHawg deletes this topic. @SpartHawg, sorry for taking the troll bait, I couldn't help myself.Bastian964 22:51, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * On a side note, what the hell has happened to the political discourse in this country? We in the military (being generally conservative) follow the creed of "While I may not agree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it!" I guess now though, the kids are instead saying "Since I disagree with what you say, you are a traitor to this country, and in the event of a civil war, I will do my best to kill you!" Charming. SpartHawg948 00:24, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

The youth of the modern world seem to operate under the assumption that freedom of speech not only protects what you have to say, but that it also means that others have to embrace everything that they say. But allow them to say what they want, it has no weight on your opinions. Should it come to an actual civil war i would personally fight and die for my ideals, which side i would fight with would depend on the roots of the schism and lines upon which the nation is devided, i certainly hope that i would find myself fighting on the same side as sparthawg though, because although i dont agree with what you say all of the time, i respect your right to say it. ralok 04:27, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Very true. I don't agree with all sorts of things people say. And due to my military service I've been called a fascist, a warmonger, a baby-killer, a jack-booted thug, and now, a traitor. I still would defend the right of all those jerks to call me all those horrible names to the death. That's what this country is about! :) SpartHawg948 05:12, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

And that is part of what really makes you a good man, is becauseyou willingly put yourself into a position to be called those things, you chose this path and there are consqeuences but you live with it, and most of those insults dont even make sense in the context of any military carrer that i know of? except maybe one of them, but it is more of an incidental thing that cannot be helped (not going to say which thing it is) ralok 05:31, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

I have a lot of respect for anyone in the military, and the fact that you are willing to put yourself in harm's way to defend our freedoms and our way of life is something that not everyone can do. I really hate what people say about the military sometimes because anyone who can willingly go into a battle with confidence, then they don't deserve anything they are called that is not respectable. Lancer1289 05:53 March 16, 2010 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of removing my words from the talk pages.- Throwback
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


 * Good call. I was waiting to hear back from one of the other admins, but I see someone decided to throw a tantrum. Was it the part where I pointed out that the United States had managed to survive for 203 years without FEMA that did it? B/c I thought that was an excellent point. Or was it when I pointed out that, contrary to your ridiculous statement, small-government conservatives actually have no problem with police and firefighters, as they are local, not federal government? Either way, deleting comments made by other users on talk pages was one f-up too many, so, as the umpires say, "Yer outta here!" SpartHawg948 05:16, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Mordin in last decade
I know you may have forgoten bout this edit. It was a while ago, but with Mordin stating he is in his last decade, it was related to him being in his 30's cause salarians rarely grow beyond 40. Next time you want to be a smart ass do your research first.
 * I beg your pardon? I have no idea what you're talking about, but I do know that the manner in which you addressed me is wholly inappropriate. We have a policy of not being rude or insulting to other users. I STRONGLY suggest you review this policy and reevaluate your statement. SpartHawg948 05:36, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

see now i am curious about this? what is the context of this inexplicable anger, what did you you say sparthawg? ralok 05:38, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Your guess is as good as mine! I have no idea what the first poster here is referring to. (Hint- if you want to rudely make a point, it helps if the intended target has at least some clue as to what you are talking about!) SpartHawg948 05:44, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at the history for the Mordin Solus page and look before your edit was undone by User:Bastian964. Your summery is waht I think he was refering to. Lancer1289 05:46 March 16, 2010 (UTC)

OK. Im sorry. forget about it. I wasn't angry, just joking. I understand thts hard to convey in text and i get how you could get the wrong impression. Won't happen again.
 * Amazing. Since I don't waste my time trolling forums, and had the nerve, the sheer audacity even! to mistakenly make an edit without checking the source (I guess mistakes aren't permissible anymore), I get subjected to "jokes" of this nature. Never mind the fact that there was nothing unreasonable about the statement I made in my edit summary. Never mind the fact that as soon as it was undone and I saw the error of my ways I happily sat aside and accepted it as fact. I get "jokes" like this to brighten up my day. Fan-****ing-tastic! (Note, if I seem a bit mad, it's b/c this really wasn't the day for this sort of "joke". Any day some pompous ass calls me a traitor to my country for not agreeing 100% with him, which can be seen above, is not a good day.) SpartHawg948 05:54, March 16, 2010 (UTC)