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.

Rachni Song
I asked also Lancer about this.

I recorded some samples from the rachni song that can be heard on Luna (while on the mission for the rogue VI) and put them togetherer. I have a audio file about 40 seconds.

This is the file:

Can it be used to the rachni article? SoulRipper 22:46, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * For now, I would say no. At least not until we figure out how we're going to incorporate audio into articles, a discussion that is currently ongoing. And even then, since this is not a Codex article, and since it's not (strictly speaking) taken directly from the game (as you state that you took samples and "put them togetherer[sic]", I'd still be inclined to say no. Talk page? Sure. Article? No. Maybe, just maybe, once the discussion on audio in articles is completed, an unaltered clip can be placed in the article, but I don't want to speculate on future eventualities at this time. SpartHawg948 22:52, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * When I say samples I mean that I recorded a video which is about 5:30 and took off the "silence" parts (where there is no rachni sounds). In those 5 and a half mintues there are about 50-60 seconds of rachni sounds and quite a bit distanced the one sound from the other. Here is the edited video (from the the 5:30 long video) that I uploaded on youtube : Rachni Song Luna.


 * Its the exact audio that I exported to .ogg.SoulRipper 23:13, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also have to agree. Right now I'd have to say no, and since the clip is a sampling, i.e. altered, I'd have to say no on that count as well. Maybe once we get this Codex audio thing worked out, we can revisit this, but I'd also have to agree that an unaltered clip would be the only thing that would be allowed. Not an altered clip. Lancer1289 23:21, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * So again, it's not lifted straight from the game. It's snippets taken and edited by you. This is just what I said, and your explanation of how you altered it does nothing to change that. SpartHawg948 23:22, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand what you mean about the altering. What you want is a rip of the exact file from the game files and not a recorded one, right? SoulRipper 23:28, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be preferable, but another issue I have is just posting an audio file (Additionally, I still don't think you do understand what I meant by altering. I didn't mean it had to be from the game files and not recorded, I just meant that, if recorded, it needed to be unaltered, i.e. no removing of portions of the audio to, for example, remove silent periods from the middle. When I said 'altered', I meant 'altered'). I'm not trying to cast aspersions on you or anything, but the rachni audio file you upload could be from anywhere. The way I'd be most comfortable with doing this would be linking to a youtube video, preferably one that shows both the location on the map where it is being heard, and shows Shep and company on the moon listening to it. This and the Codex audio, after all, are not completely analogous situations. SpartHawg948 23:31, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can find anything in the game files.SoulRipper 23:50, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Or you could take what I said and seemingly ignore it. Whatever works. I do so love having 90% of my message being ignored in favor of the 10% that works best for others. Really makes my feel my opinion matters. SpartHawg948 23:55, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

I want space
Small thing. I would like to move "Codex/The Master Thief:Kasumi's Secrets" and "Codex/The Veteran:Zaeed's Secrets" to "Codex/The Master Thief: Kasumi's Secrets" and "Codex/The Veteran: Zaeed's Secrets" respectively (notice the spaces inserted into the titles). As this is a fairly small correction (the spaces, while present in the game and used in aliases on the Codex article, were for whatever reason not factored in by the articles' creators here), can I go ahead and do the moves without the week-long debate? -- Commdor (Talk) 22:57, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Are you trying to make finding articles more difficult than it already is for me? :P Frankly, I don't care. This one seems like a clear-cut case of "the titles are wrong, so it's okay to move it without asking" to me. SpartHawg948 22:59, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okey dokey, smokey. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:01, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... would that make you The Bandit? Not sure how I feel about that... SpartHawg948 23:03, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

And FYI, isn't it almost time for a new Featured Article? Let's see if we can't get you to post one on-time one of these days. :) -- Commdor (Talk) 23:17, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're talking about. I nearly always post on-time. It's just a matter of perspective. All I need to do is post sometime between Midnight tonight, and midnight tomorrow night. If I post it at 11:59 pm on Wednesday night, I still meet my deadline. And I just so happen to be in California, so even though I meet my deadline, to you it will look like I didn't, since you're a few hours ahead of me. SpartHawg948 23:36, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Armor mis-links; and related question
I've noticed on several occasions that armor links (especially [or maybe only?] purchased armor) send the viewer to the N7 Armor page, which does not contain the relevant information. For examples, Omega Market: the links for the armor inventory items. FYI. I can correct some links as I come across them (I won't correct that market for now, so it can serve as an example), but I thought you might want to know as well. p.s. why do we have the same info on N7 Armor and Armor Customization? or better yet, do we need them both? AnotherRho 04:53, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the thing is that it used to link to the correct parts of the N7 armor page, which used to contain all the relevant info. However, the armor pages were revamped some time ago, causing some links to seeming have these issues. So yeah, if you'd like to fix them, by all means. As for why we have the N7 and armor, well... we really don't. There's a section about customization on the N7 armor page, but it's just a blurb with a link to the Armor Customization page. And yes, we need both pages. We need the armor customization page to cover armor customization, and how much sense would it make if we had individual pages for all the armor sets except for N7 armor? SpartHawg948 05:01, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea the revamp was a good idea, and I've been trying to find the conversation where we did it. Unfortunatly I can't seem to find it right now. However becase so many armor pieces were being added, having them all on the N7 Page was overtaxing the page and moving away from what it was supposed to do, which is present the N7 armor. The customization page is a much better place for that as now all the armor pages match in their content and we have moved the massive amount of armor parts to their own page. Lancer1289 05:08, September 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * I see, N7 Armor, Inferno Armor, Cerberus Assault Armor, etc. That being cleared up, then the only problem is the incorrect (i.e., useless) links.  I'll fix any I find.  AnotherRho 05:15, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Most will be on the shop pages, I'll go around and fix them as well. Lancer1289 05:16, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

ref DO NOT REMOVE COMMENTS LEFT BY OTHER USERS
http://masseffect.wikia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Mass_Effect_2_Guide&action=history That is not another user, it's still me typing from work not logged in. Says so in my profile too. The comment I deleted is old and has no meaning there anymore. You can delete this message at your convenience. Thank you Perj 05:21, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Your profile mentions nothing about being that unregistered user, and even if it did, it would not be considered valid proof. After all, I can go onto my user page right now and edit it to claim I am any of a number of unregistered users. The fact remains that registered user Perj removed a comment left by an unregistered user, and there is simply no way to verify that this unregistered user is, in fact, you. If the comment is old and has no meaning anymore, then delete it while not logged in and while using the IP that added it. This is the only acceptable way to remove a comment from the talk page. It HAS to be removed by the user (registered account or unregistered IP) that added it. SpartHawg948 05:44, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Rachni Song INGAME files.
I found the files!!! The sound is crystal-clear BUT...the downside is that there are 4 files (UNC Sand-animal 1 ot 4). If I take those 4 files and put them the one after the other without changing anything, just import the files as they are to the audio editor and export a .ogg file, is still concidered as alteration? Also I have extracted all the codex entries from the first ME game. (Edit) Lancer I want your opinion too. SoulRipper 17:42, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember the other objections I had? The ones you breezed over instead of answering by announcing that "I'll get in-game files"? Please address those before I consider this, as one of my objections would render this whole thing moot. Additionally, you've got all the Codex entries, eh? Ummm... good for you? Not sure what you want me to say. Dammej is working on that currently. SpartHawg948 20:17, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I was asked for my opinion here it is, I'd have to side with Spart on this one that there are still may things to work out first. The thing about combining them into one file is it is still an alteration. We have absolutely no way to confirm that there wasn't anything additional added to it. Remember even space, or silence, to music, such as splicing them together, is still classified as an alteration. The things you learn in Music Theory eh. The only way I can see this working is that all four files are uploaded individually. That is the only way I can see, and I'm not sure even that would work or look good. Personally I'd like to see those other objections Spart brought up addressed before moving any futher. Lancer1289 21:11, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1st I know that there are problems that have to be solved before a audio file will be added to an article. What Im saying is that when and if you need those files, I have them and I can give them to you.
 * 2nd If you dont trust me, I can tell you what file is in which the rachni sounds are located and how I extracted them and do it yourself so to be sure that I didnt added a few miliseconds of silence or something.
 * 3d You know something...Just forget about it. I feel like I have done something wrong or killed somebody. I just want to help. SoulRipper 21:48, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * What? I don't understand. I think there's a language barrier issue here, because I don't think that either Lancer or SpartHawg were trying to degrade you or state their mistrust of you in any way. SpartHawg is only asking that you at least acknowledge the other issues he raised before you bring up the issue again. I can't speak for him, but it's extremely frustrating when someone continually asks "Can I do this now?" after they address one objection, but haven't looked at others. It wouldn't change the answer, because not all objections have been addressed.
 * Your contributions are most certainly welcome and appreciated. I doubt Lancer or SpartHawg will flat out refuse an addition of the Rachni song to the wiki that satisfactorily addresses their concerns. But until you do address those other concerns, they're not going to be very receptive to continued pushing for its addition. -- Dammej ( talk ) 22:10, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Once again, I'm not calling into question how the audio would be presented in article. We've gone over that, and I feel that we have a sufficient understanding of the issue that we don't need to re-hash it, which is why it wasn't one of the concerns I was referring to. As such, I don't see why you even brought it up.


 * Next, did I say I didn't trust you? Nope. In fact, I went out of my way to reassure you that this was not the case. Please don't try to make this a me vs you thing, as it isn't. My concern is that it's far and away more helpful, easier, and a better idea all around, to simply link to a video demonstrating the rachni songs as well as demonstrating where people can hear them. Extracted files from in-game do not do this, nor are they easily verifiable, like in-game footage (in the form of a video) would be.


 * And I understand and respect that you are just trying to help. I have no idea why you feel you've done something wrong. Have I accused you of any misdeeds, or addressed you in an accusatory tone? No. I've tried to help bring this idea to fruition, but (and pardon the language), I also want to ensure it isn't done half-assed. Do it right or don't do it at all is my motto on these matters. Funny thing is, I also want to help, which is what I've been trying to do. SpartHawg948 22:16, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I completely get it and sorry for the trouble. Maybe I got a little (A LOT) to "excited" and lost it. Now really the video thing is a lot better and maybe Ill go for that. Im really sorry again.SoulRipper 22:38, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I also know that you are trying to help, and I respect that, but things like this need to be done carefully. As to the video idea, that seems like a much better alternative than dealing with the files, as it can be easily recognizable and verified by just playing it. I have also been trying to help with this as it would be a great addition to the article, however there were some major complexities that needed to be worked out first. Which now they have with that video idea. Lancer1289 22:56, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean with: however there were some major complexities that needed to be worked out first. Which now they have with that video idea.SoulRipper 23:04, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * The biggest ones were the alteration and verification thing, which is easliy solved by the video. The third one was how to incorperate it, which is still an ongoing process with the narriated Codex entires. Once that is worked out, then we can figure this out. However since we decided on linking videos, that problem is somewhat mute. That is what I ment, the video problems solves most of the issues, but there are still some, like how to link the videos. Lancer1289 23:56, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean that the problem is how to add a video to the article? Does this looks OK or is something else that you want?SoulRipper 00:24, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't look ok. If you'll note, the video you uploaded is now nominated for deletion (and will be deleted very shortly) as a clear-cut violation of site video policy as enumerated in the Community Guidelines. When I said 'link to a video', I meant link to a video, like on YouTube or something, not insert a video into the article, which is a site no-no. Additionally, an unaltered video would be nice (i.e. one without big red letters all over it). SpartHawg948 00:28, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes bye bye video indeed. Liking an unaltered video from YouTube or something like that is the only way to put it in. Also it would just have to be linked, and not embedded or displayed in the page as a video, just a link, as I think that would also violate the Community Guidelines. Lancer1289 00:32, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Have both of you lost it? Did I said that this video would be added to the article? Did I added it to the article? It was my Blog and had a "VIDEO TEST" headline above which is still there. And where did I uploaded the video, in the Wiki mainspace? I pressed the button which sas "Add a video", pasted the Youtube adress and it added the video there. Does a 152 MB video uploads in 3 seconds? I dont think so. And your General FAQ, its not clear at all. That "If you want to link to a video to prove an edit is not speculation, add a link at the bottom of the article" it talks about articles not for user pages, blogs or talk pages. Either you make it clear and say that NO videos are acceptable at all or stop mocking me with that "Yes bye bye video indeed". OK? And then you say that "I respect that you want to help". Where does this show and I dont see it?SoulRipper 08:18, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. Just calm down and take a few deep breaths. And maybe reconsider who here has "lost it". Because I seem to be doing ok. No, you didn't add a video to an article, and yes, it was your blog. However, to do so, you had to upload it, which means that it was uploaded to the mainspace, which is not permitted, as I explained to you. You could just as easily have embedded the video, which would have caused it to appear and play without having to be uploaded, and would have been perfectly acceptable. And yes, the General FAQ is pretty clear. It says if you'd like to use a video, LINK IT. Uploading a video is not linking it. This is linking a video. It's not hard. And you want to know where I showed that I respect your desire to help? Just re-read this thread. Each and every time I offered advice or suggested a better or more appropriate way to do something, I was respecting your desire to help. Did I ever, EVER refuse to answer a question? DID I EVER REJECT ANY OF YOUR REQUESTS OUT OF HAND, OR TELL YOU TO STOP EDITING? No! ALL I have done is try to help you edit constructively. Don't come onto my talk page and give me crap for it. SpartHawg948 08:27, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow the things you miss when you sleep. Anyway, I use that quote on a few pages when I delete them. It isn't meant as an insult, just me trying, and failing apparently, to lighten the mood a little. However since it was apparently taken as an insult, then I apologize for that and I add another reason to my list of times that text has been misinterpreted. I do respect anyone that wants to help and try to assist if I can, or at least point them in the right direction. As to the video it is a violation of the Guidelines, and as such needed to be deleted. Linking it is the only way to go with this, rather than embedding the video in the article. Have I also ever refused to answer a question, or tried to assist? Not as far as I can remember. I have always tried to help, and I also never told you to stop editing. I have also tried to help, and I get blasted for it. Lancer1289 12:55, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Im sorry, but that really pissed me off. I didnt even saw that nomination because I was also sleeping. I added the video, I closed my PC and the next morning I have the video deleted, a dozen of comments to the blog and accusations for violation. About the video...I couldnt embed it. I copied the embed code and it was not showing the video but the code so I pressed the "Add a video" button. It didnt asked me to point a video file in my computer to upload. It asked me to paste a link from a site like Youtube, Dailymotion etc, and so I did. I dont think that that was a upload, because it took 3 to 4 seconds to show the video after I pressed the "Preview" button and a video about 152 MB cant be uploaded in 3-4 seconds (at least with conventional speeds and I definitely dont have a T3 connection and I think that neither does wiki). It had to be a embed. But anyway, if videos are not allowed at all, that doesnt matter.
 * I know, that video is not good BUT my point was to ask about how it looked like that (not the video but how it was placed). What I got it was that I violated the policy of the site and stuff. The only thing that was needed it was just a no. One way or another I would delete the video because it was just a test not a permanent thing.
 * Anyway, I apologize for my behevior.
 * Now I want to go back to the video thing.
 * I recorded 3 videos, one for each of Luna, Altahe and Nepmos. Each video starts from the cutscene that shows the Mako get dropped from the Normandy. Then I show on the map where is the place where the rachni song can be heard and drive the Mako there. After that I show the place around and untill the end of each video there are rachni sounds that can be heard. The duration is around 3 minutes and some seconds, uncut, no edit (not even the volume) just a fade out at the end. I have default armor and weapons for every squad member.
 * The videos are 720p HD, recorded with Fraps. Here are the links: Luna, Altahe, Nepmos. Also when recording the Altahe video, Fraps did some s--t so the video has about 4-5 seconds with about 1-4 fps but the sound is OK.
 * Also on Aeia I didnt heard any rachni sound but one who is similar to the "short sound" that can be heard on the 3 planets in the first game. Its more like some animal is doing that sounds (the whole place looks tropical) rather than some rachni, all the other sounds are bird sounds and environment sounds (water, wind etc). I was listening for about 6 minutes.
 * One more thing that I want ot mention is that the rachni sounds resemble (and can be possibly influenced by) the sounds that the whales do, for example as can be heard in this video. SoulRipper 16:53, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don’t know about Spart, but I’d rather have the links over embedding the video. Because we have that no video policy, embedding is fine on a user page, like how GrandMoffVixen has his page, but I really don’t think it should be done in articles. While the videos are good, the audio, even on Nepmos it is clear. The only problem I have is the travel time, but I can easily shrug that off as in-game footage and a necessity. That is really the only gripe I have with it.
 * As to whether I prefer links or embedding, I’d prefer links over embedding, otherwise we might send the wrong message about the video policy. Also could you please tone down on what you type. I don’t know about Spart, but “bulls--t” is still swearing/inappropriate language to me. Lancer1289 18:51, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

OK, the bull thing will not be typed again. Also thats what exactly I was trying to do like GrandMoffVixen. I checked how he embeded the video and is completely different than for example embed a video to a myspace page where you just get the embed code, paste it and its done. Now about the driving time I kept it so to be uncut from the landing till the end and to show how to go there because Spart said about showing where is the place where the song can be heard. I will agree with you about linking. If embeded it cant be full size because its to big for an article. If scaled down (as a thumb) it will not show good and any user will have to go to the site where the video came from. So either way (scaled-down-embed/thumb or link) will have the same result, so I think better add a link. SoulRipper 19:08, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * The Driving thing I said I was fine with, because it also shows people where to find it for themselves. As to the embedding, I would have to say that no matter how we do it, it wouldn’t turn out well. A link is a good way here as it works out better, and eliminates a lot of hassle. Lancer1289 19:16, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Now when I look the rachni article it concerns me where those links can or should be added. At the trivia where it says about the song?SoulRipper 19:41, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

I just want to point out, in response to your comments, none of my messages in your video blog were accusations. Not one. I simply pointed out (as it seemed that you were unaware) that there was a site policy prohibiting what you did. There was no accusation there, and I do not appreciate your claim that I did accuse you of anything. This 'wild rant folowed by an apology' thing is getting real old, real fast. I would strongly suggest that, in the future, you take a bit to cool down and actually read what has been said thoroughly before going onto other peoples talk pages and leaving messages like the ones you've left here. Now, as Lancer said, embedding video in the articles is a no-go. They will have to be linked. No ifs, ands, or buts. SpartHawg948 19:49, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah the trivia section seems the best please for the links. And it seems that links is the only way to go. Lancer1289 20:01, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Clear enough. Also as I said earlier I didnt noticed any rachni sounds at Aeia at Jacobs mission. I think that this claim is not accurate. The only sound that can be heard is a sound which is similar to the short sound that can be heard on the 3 planets from the first game and unlike with the songs to the first game, that sound on Aeia can be heard anywhere while the rachni song can be heard only at a specific place on each planet. SoulRipper 20:19, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Erinya talk
Sorry I've moved to your talk page (shouldn't happen again), but I'd rather remove this question farther from the article. I know you exclude speculation for the reason you gave. I agree with that policy (I've removed some speculations myself). It is ironic that you were speaking in the same mode to me as I was trying to speak at first. More could be said, but rather than make this any more protracted, satisfy my curiosity: off the record, in your opinion, is it likely that we, the players, are meant to think of the (only) two named asari (who are not the Consort) from the presidium of ME1? E.g., if you were to ask me the same sort of question about Aria and Aleena, I would say that, from the point of view of the game (i.e., as a work of art), it is clear that the Aria is meant to recall Wrex's Aleena, even though no one says so in ME1 or 2. AnotherRho 07:54, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't really answer as to whether we are meant to think that these are the two being referred to, at least not (I suspect) with an answer you would find satisfactory. I know I didn't think that she must be referring to Nelyna and Saphyria. Of course, I also don't really think that Aleena and Aria are one and the same. I can see why some people would think that, but I also don't think there is anything substantive to either of those theories, just as I don't think there is anything to the related theory that Matriarch Aethyta is Liara T'Soni's other parent. SpartHawg948 08:01, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing substantial to the claims about Aethyta and Liara's parent (or anyone else and her parent). But au contraire mon ami, your answer satisfied me very much.  Thank you for answering!  AnotherRho 08:04, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And, just as you say there is nothing substantial to the claims about Aethyta and Liara, I feel there is nothing substantive about the theory that the Consort greeter has to be Nelyna, when we see several other asari working there, and when (based on Nelyna's own comments) 'greeter' doesn't appear to be a dedicated position but rather one that is likely filled by whoever is not with a client at the moment/for the day, and that the Embassy worker has to be Saphyria when there are, in all likelihood, a plethora of asari working at the embassies. Ditto for Aria and Aleena, when asari mercs seem to be very common, and with none of the 'connecting info' being very uncommon. It's all common turns of phrase and such. There is literally as much substance to those theories as to the Liara/Aethyta theory, IMO. SpartHawg948 08:09, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, since you responded in such detail, I'll add that the latter claim is based on the statements that Liara doesn't know her parentage, is pureblood, and that Aethyta has a pureblood daughter. But there is nothing specific to any of those (and to boot there are other purebloods in-game).  The other cases are different (although Erinya's case is the weaker and less important); but everything depends on the fundamental fact of the game.  Once one is in-game, the specifics become radically specific (e.g., no one else says "Better luck next time"). The entire story is similar. Compare Shepard and the Council: his hard evidence is actually pretty weak; the Council won't buy it; but in-game (for the player), there are sufficient hints and suggestions as to convince the player that there are meant to be giant, world-destroying sapient machines, waiting to demolish all advanced life in the galaxy (if you think about it, if ME2 didn't end with the cutscene of the reeper fleet, there would be no solid evidence [not even the derelict ship] of the reepers at all; a big ship here, a hologram there, some bad dreams, villainous races, etc.).  But so as not to tire you with this any longer... thank you for the conversation!  AnotherRho 08:40, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

And 'better luck next time' isn't a common phrase? Just saying, Liara says she never knew her other asari parent and (IIRC) postulates that this could have been due to some unpleasantness between Benezia and the other one. And Aethyta has a pureblood daughter she's never met, due to unpleasantness with the other parent. Clearly there's just as much to suggest a link here as there is to connect Aria and Aleena, especially when part of the evidence is that both have said 'better luck next time', or something to that effect. After all, there are plenty of other asari mercs in game. Certainly way more asari mercs than there are purebloods. I mean, what are the odds of meeting first an asari pureblood who never knew her other parent, and then an asari parent of a pureblood who never knew her daughter? If anything, there's a more solid 'case' here than there is for Aria and Aleena on the basis of 'better luck next time'. SpartHawg948 08:50, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea that Aria and Allena case is somewhat slippery, and so is this case and Aethyta and Liara. Overall I don' thing there is much to back up any of the three cases. As to why people think that way, it's probably because something is suggested and they immediately think that because there is no other theory presented, then that must be the case. As to whether I believe it, I honestly don't believe any of the three cases. While each has some, very minor, support, they are all based mostly on speculation rather than facts. Lancer1289 13:45, September 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, the Aria-Aleena, etc., cases are "speculation". But tell me, what would be a fact? AnotherRho 20:21, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess it would be fact when it is said explicitly in a canonical way through game, novel or comic. There is a certain amount of deduction that one can make but there is always going to be some amount of assumption within that. I personally feel that that Aria/Aleena being the same person argument holds quite a lot of weight from the dialogue with Aria, but I wouldn't argue against someone who thought otherwise because it is after all speculation. FridgeRaider88 20:33, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, a fact is something explicitly stated or shown, such as the fact that Liselle is Aria's daughter, or in rare circumstances something that is not shown per se, but can be inferred, such as the fact that when the screen fades to black during any of the romance cutscenes, Shepard and the love interest are in fact (to quote ZZ Top) doing the tube snake boogie. SpartHawg948 20:40, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If Aria said, "I was once called Aleena", that "fact" would be no more trustworthy than her claiming to have once changed her name, been a commando, been a merc, pissed off a Krogan, preferred to disappear rather than kill someone, etc.; she is such a shady character after all. (the tube snake boogie? nothing reptilian about those hairy guys) AnotherRho 20:46, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters if there was anything more solid to go on than: the fact that she was once a merc (which seems very common for young asari, as evidenced by overheard conversations throughout the game, particularly on Illium), the fact that she's used many names (extremely common for underworld figures, just ask Paul Johnson, err, Grayson), the fact that she says "better luck next time" or some form of that very common phrase, the fact that she pissed off a krogan (not hard to do, as she seems to have pissed off several, just as the Patriarch), and the fact that she makes a vague comment about preferring to disappear rather than kill someone. Maybe if she referenced a fight on a space station, or Urdnot Wrex (who is well-known enough in ME2, assuming he survives Virmire, that it could reasonably be expected for well-informed people to know who he is), or something along those lines. Now, were she to say flat-out that one of her former aliases was Aleena, that would be enough to treat it as fact unless something non-dialogue was revealed that contradicted her being the Aleena, as we have it from good authority (writers for the game) that dialogue from characters is at times inaccurate and ill-informed. SpartHawg948 20:53, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Spart, I know I won't persuade you, but I want to at least make sure you have more of the facts (even if for the refuting). Her preference for disappearing is told with a moment of softness in her voice (Wrex said Aleena was always a bit of a softy).  And she speaks of some salarian creditors claiming that they were more entitled to her money (a quantity of money apparently sufficient for her to begin operation coup-d'Omega); and Aleena had chosen to fight Wrex on an old salarian space station, the complete destruction of which she was a first cause (since she chose it).
 * If, however, it is true that writers have confirmed that they are not remarkably competent (as writers), then I, too, would not believe that the allusions to the two young asari in the presidium, and Aleena, were intended to be reminders of the first game. (To infer anything from a writing or story, one must have in mind (a) that it is an artificial work, and (b) that the maker has minimal competence as artisan). So, fair enough. AnotherRho 21:29, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * And I in turn feel the need to remind you that the space station may have been built by the salarians, but was no longer used by them, as it was serving as a base for pirates and mercs when the fight took place. And, since that was at least part of the reason it was chosen, I can't say I agree with Aleena being the 'first cause' of its destruction. Blame either the pirates or the salarians themselves for that. Again, there is literally as much evidence to support this theory as there is to Aethyta being Liara's other parent, and there are far fewer common occurrences cited as 'evidence' in the latter theory. End of the day, there's really only one fact that matters - there is no confirmation (veiled or otherwise) that Aria is Aleena. None. SpartHawg948 22:03, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I remember. But you do well to remind me that the chain of "blame" or responsibility always leads back further, ultimately to the big bang, or to the cause or causes of that.  Still, you may be right; better cautious than rash, in many cases.  Thank you SpartHawg for generously answering my questions.  AnotherRho 01:09, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's what I do! :) SpartHawg948 01:15, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there... doing a new playthrough, and while conversing with Aria, she informs the Commander that her fight with Patriarch was the most difficult fight of her life. This makes me a little more skeptical than I already am about Aria being Aleena. After all, Aleena was wounded badly enough to be forced to seek medical care mid-fight, and was only able to escape Wrex by blowing up the space station they were on. Seems hard to imagine a fight between Aria and Patriarch in Afterlife that is more difficult than that, especially in light of the fact that, as of 2185, Aria, Patriarch, Afterlife, and Omega are all intact! :P SpartHawg948 07:58, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. That's an in-game difficulty I've noticed, too. It's easily explained away in-game (she's lying, i.e., it helps her maintain Patriarch as an "example"), or out-of-game (writer oversight).  Buuuut I'm not satisfied by explaining-away.  Was disappointed that LotSB didn't shed any more light on this either way, but perhaps we'll learn more in the years to come (unfortunately, I may not be able to find out, since I doubt I'll ever get ME3).  -- In other news, Spart, I found the vid archive page (haven't watched all the vids yet), only to see that note about Aethyta.  I can't believe that you made that great argument about her, though not believing it, and I rejected the claim out of hand, and yet... ! Oh well. AnotherRho 19:50, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it: to borrow a phrase from Mordin, "No proof. But theory fits evidence." ;P AnotherRho 23:11, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

LotSB Talk Page
Since the Talk:Lair of the Shadow Broker page has gotten extrememly long, and it doens't appear to be slowing down, I was thinking of archiving the whole talk page on the 6th. The main reason was to get all of the pre-release stuff off the talk page so issues after the pack comes out can be addressed. What I was thinking of is putting a notice at the top of the page warning users that the page will be archived at 00:00 UTC September 7th. Just wondering what you think about that? Lancer1289 20:06, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno. It's only 17 sections, and it's not too terribly long yet. SpartHawg948 20:11, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well its the actual size of the page, which is almost 65,000 bytes. Currently the guidelines are 50 comments or 75,000 bytes, but there is also that week waiting period after the last comment pushes it over one of those two requirements to archive the page. Since all the current stuff on the page is about pre-release material and questions about it, most if not all of them will be answered when the pack comes out. I was just thinking that we could prevent the page from getting longer with people commenting in threads that are already answered like how some people edit talk page sections that haven't seen any activity in a long time. If you are against the idea, then I'll desist but it was just something I was thinking about so that when the pack does come out, issues and questions with it can be brought up and answered without having to sift through the pre-release comments. Yes I know that is just going to the right sections, but its conversations like the weapons section, that might get additional comments about how there were no weapons and the whole conversation was incorrect, even though the conversation ended over a month ago. Lancer1289 20:21, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm not really a huge fan of using the size in bytes as a parameter for archiving. I'd prefer to keep it confined to actual length of the page, and I don't think the page is long enough to warrant archiving yet. It's a very new talk page, and I just don't see the need to cut off conversations that are ongoing at an arbitrary point, such as 00:00 UTC on the 7th. SpartHawg948 20:43, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright then, I'll drop the matter. Lancer1289 20:45, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

I thought you might be interested to know
The Zaeed in ME3 thread at the BioWare forum is starting to really put some roots down. Might actually accomplish something after all, eh? Arbington 21:06, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yay! We can go kick it with Zaeed in ME3! Moment of shame- I do have to admit though, across all my playthroughs, I've only had one squad member killed, and it was Zaeed, in my very first playthrough when I sent him to lead the distraction team in the Collector Base. I thought, "who better to lead a squad then the co-founder of one of the top merc groups in the galaxy, and the one who used to lead the men, to boot!" Turns out, I was wrong... :( SpartHawg948 21:25, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Paradoxically, he can hold the line by himself while you abort the baby Reaper. What a guddamn badass. -- Dammej ( talk ) 21:30, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

There should be an update where if you pick him he doesnt die.--Legionwrex 21:27, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * You would think their should be. He's had experience in leading men, surely he can do so again. I mean Kasumi can go into the vents, why can't Zaeed be a squad leader? Lancer1289 21:31, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

If Zaeed isn't back in ME3, I'll be pissed, to say the least. It takes a big godamn hero to save the galaxy, and when you need a big godamn hero, you've really only got one choice (other than Shepard). Zaeed's your man! SpartHawg948 21:36, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

That is if he isnt hell bent on getting revenge on vido, if you took the parogon rout and didnt gain his loyalty he would probably let shepherd and his whole team die just to kill vido.--Legionwrex 21:43, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit Conflicts Abound)I know, Zaeed totally should've been able to survive! As for the thread, we aren't nearly done yet. A fifty post thread that tends to be on the front page is by no means going to attract BioWare's attention, at least not yet. I just thought you might be interested to know we're making progress. Arbington 21:44, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflicts indeed) He might let this "Shepherd" person die, but given that he can stay loyal to Commander Shepard even if you let Vido live in ME2, I doubt he'd let Shepard die. He'd probably just demand that Shepard help him kill Vido after they save the galaxy. SpartHawg948 21:45, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Zaeed seems pretty loyal to Shepard, and either outcome for his loyalty mission leads to possibilities for his return in ME3. Arbington 21:49, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding, knowing zaeed he would sell out the whole galaxy to the reapers on the condition that they find vido and bring vido to him just so he could kill him in person--Legionwrex 21:49, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is why he did just that in ME2? Ummm.... no. He fought loyally alongside Shepard. Zaeed isn't stupid. If he sells out the galaxy to the Reapers in exchange for Vido, he gets revenge, but then loses pretty much everything. He's too savvy a businessman to sell out the galaxy (thus undercutting his entire business) to get revenge on one person. He's a lot smarter than some people give him credit for. SpartHawg948 21:52, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * (I Absolutely Despise Edit Conflicts) Or, Zaeed could see it as Shepard owing him Vido's head. Those who choose to delve into Zaeed's character and personality would learn that he's not just loyal to cash, but that he has a whole "honor" thing going for him as well. H would most certainly not sell the galaxy to the Reapers, at the very least. Arbington 21:54, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict again) Indeed. He makes it pretty clear how he feels about Reapers and their minions, and you're right. He's not the type to make stupid deals like selling out the galaxy or betraying Shepard just to get Vido, especially after ME2, when he sees firsthand that Shepard is likely his best bet at getting to Vido and killing him in the first place. SpartHawg948 21:57, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Well for the poeple that let vido get away, if there is another loyalty mission in ME 3 I hope you can do a paragon inturupt to stop zaeed from killing vido--Legionwrex 21:56, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Vido kinda shot Zaeed in the face, left him for dead, took over his until then reasonably moral Blue Suns, and turned them into an amoral killing machine. Vido kinda deserves to die, at least in my opinion. Arbington 22:02, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Atleast in my option that doesnt give zaeed the write to kill him, he should be brought to court where he can pay for his crimes.--Legionwrex 22:05, September 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding Zaeed selling out Shep., Zaeed says in effect (within his cargo hold) that he understands the enormous importance of the mission. - Regarding Zaeed not being able to lead the distraction squad (although he can lead the survivors back to the Normandy without incident), I've a similar question. When Shep. goes for the Reeper larva, what determines if someone dies while defending the door? (The only thing I've been able to guess is that you have to leave a sufficient number of hardcore soldiers. E.g., if Zaeed returned with the Normandy survivors, and Shep. took Grunt and Miranda to the Reeper, Mordin always dies at the door (regardless of loyalty). But if Jack and Miranda come with Shep, no one dies). - So, when Shep. goes for the Reeper larva, what determines if someone dies while defending the door? AnotherRho 22:06, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict AGAIN) Right... because courts solve everything, huh? Vido does need to die, and Zaeed needs to be the one to do it. Did Vido have the "right" to shoot Zaeed in the face? No! The Terminus Systems are lawless! There are no courts. It's the Wild freakin' West! It's time to go out there and kill some dangerous criminals! SpartHawg948 22:09, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

I did not know he shot zaeed in the terminus systems, but still killing Vido would not be the "paragon" thing to do--Legionwrex 22:12, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Killing a murderer who hires terrorists and kills innocent civilians wouldn't be a paragon thing to do? How so? SpartHawg948 22:13, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * As for your question about the holding the line bit, AnotherRho, it's actually explained in the Mass Effect 2 Walkthrough: Mass_Effect 2 Guide. SpartHawg948 22:13, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Spart, you're the man. AnotherRho 22:16, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I do what I can! Long story short, always send Mordin to escort the survivors back to the Normandy! :) SpartHawg948 22:17, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Well jacobs dad was just as bad and saving him is the pargon thing to do,and if there is the option to stop zaeed from shooting vido(assuming this scnereo even hapens in ME 3) how mutch do you wanna bet you will get paragon points for stoping zaeed from killing Vido.--Legionwrex 22:18, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but you're glazing over the real issue here. The paragon option in Zaeed's loyalty mission ISN'T stopping Zaeed from killing Vido, it's saving the lives of all the people who would die if you make killing Vido your first priority. It isn't "Killing Vido = Bad, Letting Him go = Good", it's "Putting Revenge First = Bad, Putting the mission first and saving lives = Good". SpartHawg948 22:21, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said, Spart. Arbington 22:24, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

I know what im say is in Mass effect 3 if zaeed has a gun pointed at vido head and you stop him from shooting YOU WILL GET PARAGON POINTS I say this as a fact--Legionwrex 22:25, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * How's that a fact? The game isn't out yet. Arbington 22:26, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah Legion, what do you mean you say it as a fact? Are you claiming to have inside info? -- (Spart): If I'd only read that guide before.  I always sent Zaeed with the survivors since he's a guy who has survived for 20 years as a lone merc and bounty hunter (cf. his little speech about suicide missions); who else on the team could make it while escorting sheep, alone, through the Collector Ship but Zaeed?  But it turns out anyone loyal can! Oh well. AnotherRho 22:28, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I sent Grunt the first time because he was big and tough and could take care of himself. So don't worry, it's not just you. And Legion, you have to realize, that even in the Paragon route, KILLING VIDO is still the ultimate objective! It's why you keep going after you save the refinery, which is the mission, after all. So I just don't see a "let Vido live'" paragon option in ME3. It just doesn't make sense. SpartHawg948 22:31, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Its a fact because ive played this game so many time I know what will earn you paragon point and doing that WILL EARN YOU PARAGON POINTS' sorry if im being aggresive.--Legionwrex 22:33, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) You know what? The more I think about it, the more that letting Vido live in ME3 sounds like a Renegade option. It goes like this: You corner Vido, he makes you an offer, likely in the form of lots and lots of cold, hard cash, and/or joining your squad or putting the Blue Suns at your disposal. Paragon route - you stay true to your word and help Zaeed kill Vido, a lying murdering scum-bucket. Renegade route - you betray Zaeed, killing him, and siding with Vido. Makes more sense to me than letting a murderous liar live being the paragon route. SpartHawg948 22:35, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, that kind of fact. - Spart, an interesting point (kind of like Morinth-Samara). Another curious path would be if (assuming an ME3 Zaeed-Vido encounter) they allowed Shepard such a paragon interrupt, which then served to distract Zaeed, which enabled Vido to shoot (or even kill!) Zaeed... followed by a quick death to Vido, anyway. AnotherRho 22:38, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry but why does every one keep saying "EDIT CONFLICT" what does that mean,And you realy consider killing a man backed in a corner surendering "a paragon option" wow.--Legionwrex 22:39, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. After all, you could use your Paragon points to talk Saren into committing suicide. Paragon options aren't always about doing nice things, even to bad people. I can see staying loyal to Zaeed as paragon, and betraying him to make a buck as renegade. And edit conflict means that the post was edit conflicted - i.e. someone else posted first, so the person had to re-post and is putting edit conflict to explain that any redundancy is a result of the conflict. SpartHawg948 22:42, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Who ever said you had to kill zaeed to stop him, just give him a famous sheperd speech about morals.....--Legionwrex 22:47, September 4, 2010 (UTC) and then punch him in the face to gain his loyalty lol.
 * Right... because Zaeed will just let Vido go. That makes sense. Oh, wait. It doesn't. Not sure that any words from this "Sheperd" person would do any good either. It makes sense here. Just look at Morinth. What's the Paragon path? Killing a woman backed into a corner. Hmmm. Killing her. Not taking her into custody, or letting the courts decide her fate. Not everything is nice and fuzzy and happy and cartoon-y. Sometimes the best possible option still involves death. If you could go back to Germany in 1932 and shoot Hitler, would you? Seems like a mighty paragon thing to do to me. All I'm saying is, letting Vido live seems as likely to be a renegade option as a paragon option, or even more likely, IMO. SpartHawg948 22:51, September 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Vido is the kind of guy who would do whatever he could if he thought he would have more advantage by that route. He is the guy who authorizes/orders his mercs to betray those miners who found a prothean beacon; why? Because they'd gain more money that way than by doing their job = serving as arms/protection-for-hire. So, if backed into a corner, he'd plead, call upon your pity, need of money or arms, etc. (like what he does to Zaeed if you take the Renegade route in ME2). Accordingly, his "surrender" would only last as long as you had him in that corner. -- As for Spart's overall point, compare the entire plot: Shepard's overall action is to save the galaxy from destruction = Paragon; to do so requires all sorts of dirty work.  Still, it's an interesting question, what would be the conditions and consequences of Vido living through this (hypothetical) encounter. I'll bet the writers have tossed around such things... but with fewer edit conflicts. AnotherRho 22:53, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Um hittler killed millions vido kill a few thousand inderectaly, im not saying that he shouldnt die, im saying you sould just let the courts do it for you, even if it was in the terminus systems the council would still try him like they did with sidonus,ok they didnt try him but they still took him in to cusody and will most likely try him.--Legionwrex 22:58, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * But the Council didn't put Sidonis on trial, nor does anything we hear suggest they will. They have no idea what to do with him, as they can't extradite him, and his crimes occurred outside their jurisdiction. And now you're playing with numbers. "well, Vido only killed thousands, indirectly". I'd love to see sources for that. SpartHawg948 23:01, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

im ready to get roasted for saying this but maybe if this galaxy has to sacrifice its morals to survive,it doesnt deserve to survive.--Legionwrex 23:02, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Your 'letting him live = paragon' theory just doesn't make sense. In fact, despite what you said, it doesn't make sense to people who've played the game many times. It shouldn't make sense to anyone who has played Samara's loyalty mission even once and taken the paragon route. Paragon does not mean letting a monster live! If it did, Morinth would be alive. And Vido and Sidonis are hardly analogous. Sidonis sold out his friends under duress, and the guilt of it ruined his life. Vido happily sells people out left and right for a quick buck, with no indication that it weighs in his conscience at all. SpartHawg948 23:05, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Paragon options include covering up what even sympathetic observers call war crimes (what Tali's dad did to geth), convincing a man to kill himself, and letting a mother kill her own daughter (when, as you insist about Vido, it would have been preferable to hand her over to asari authorities). This is a galaxy that isn't sacrificing it's morals? But killing one vicious murderer would somehow cross that line? In what warped reality? SpartHawg948 23:10, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

In my "warped reality"!!!--Legionwrex 23:12, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with SpartHawg. Being good isn't always pretty. Being bad isn't always so ugly. Killing Vido, in my opinion, is doing the galaxy a favor. Morinth hadn't done nearly as much as Vido, yet killing her is the Paragon choice. Arbington 23:15, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Right... war crimes, egging a man on to suicide, and assisting in committing filicide are moral, but killing one mass murderer isn't. Sure thing, pal... SpartHawg948 23:16, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Fine then.--Legionwrex 23:22, September 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * On a related note that really has nothing to do with the rest of this, I was just listening to Zaeed explaining (in his words) "plague control at its most basic", and I think he may have missed his true calling in life. I think I'm gonna start calling up the networks and demanding that they immediately begin work on a new show, entitled Zaeed Massani, M.D.. I think it'll be the next big doctor show. I mean, he's obviously got the medical skills, based on his expert analysis of the plague on Omega and the wounded merc on Korlus, and his bedside manner is sure to be superb. I can't wait to see this hit primetime! :P SpartHawg948 06:06, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey. Er... the thread was locked. Apparently another similar thread already existed, and the redundancy of mine made it lockable. The other thread can be found here, and thus my efforts shall now be focused there. Feel free to re-voice your support over there. Arbington 01:04, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Xenophon
Ever read his Education of Cyrus (Cyropaedeia)? Or anything else by him. (Nice new quote. Hanson is an interesting guy). AnotherRho 05:05, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not read that one. I've read the Anabasis, and am familiar with some of his other works in other fields, but that's about it. And yeah, VDH is one of my all-time favorites. Everything he writes is fascinating, IMO, whether he's talking Homer and education, or the Peloponnesian War, or comparing Epaminondas and Sherman and Patton, or immigration policy, and I hear his books on agriculture are pretty interesting too. SpartHawg948 06:01, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * He's not a bad speaker, too. He always has an interesting and fairly unique (or "controversial") analysis or conclusion to draw from his historical studies. I'd like to read his book on the Peloponnesian War. - I ask about the "Ed. of Cyrus" because, if you liked "Anabasis," you'd surely like ththis one.  Where the "Anabasis Curou" ("The Upward March of Cyrus") deals with Cyrus the Younger, the "Education of Cyrus" deals with the Elder and the founder of the Persian empire (in fact, the last chapter references Xenophon's later experience in Persia).  It's at once about the formation of Cyrus' empire and the end of its political foundation; or, about Cyrus' education and the education he provides us, and his lack of understanding of education.  Not unlike the other, it reads like a novel.  In any case, it's a great book that I at least couldn't put down (more than once), and if you like to read at all, especially military/political works, I recommend it (I'd highly suggest the 2001 translation by Wayne Ambler, Cornell Univ. Press, whose readability and accuracy to the Greek are excellent, in my experience).  Has some great speeches for the quoting, too.  AnotherRho 16:39, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hanson's book on the Peloponnesian War (A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesan War) is very good. It's interesting because it isn't a strict chronological account of the war, per se, but more an examination of different "phases" of the war which he maintains the war consisted of. He talks about, for instance, the phase of the war where Sparta essentially attempted to starve Athens out by burning the farmland surrounding the city, as they were unable to breach its walls, the relatively quiet phase that soon followed, when Athens was hit with a terrible plague (the one that killed Pericles), a phase in which irregular warfare was used extensively around the periphery of the war (this part features Brasidas prominently), etc, with my personal favorite being the "Horses" phase, where he examines the Athenian debacle at Syracuse. All in all, it's a great book, and after all this description, I may just have to dig it out and re-read it... :) SpartHawg948 20:47, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you like that Hanson book, have to ask: have you read Thucydides? Hanson's title is (as you no doubt know) a reference to the first part of Thucydides' "Peloponnesian War".  Thucydides is very concise and often quite subtle (yet long), yet it's an excellent history.  And bonus: it's written by a guy who actually fought in the war. --AnotherRho 23:17, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't. I know a bit about Thucydides and his account of the war, but haven't actually read it. SpartHawg948 23:22, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Proper Names
Since you are probably getting just as frusterated with it as myself, based on one of your edit summaries yesterday, I was thinking since we only refer to Mass Effect as ME etc, and since it still happens where the abrivations and ME1 make it into articles I was thinking that we put it in the MoS that ME1 or Mass Effect 1 is unacceptable in articles becuase it is the incorrect name, talk pages are fine, but not in articles. Also this is more a personal thing, however I don't think abrivations like ME, MEG, or ME2 should be in articles to begin with. This would be another subsection under editing. As you stated to me previoulsy somewhere, it's hard to enforce rules if you don't write them down, and this one is frequently broken. I made a sandbox for it so it doesn't clog up your talk page again. See here for the proposal and we can have the discussion on that talk page. Lancer1289 05:46, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that sounds good, and you'll get no objections from me. SpartHawg948 06:02, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright then, that was fast, one addition coming up. Lancer1289 06:05, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Ralok
Er... hey. This is kinda awkward, but I've been talking a bit with Ralok on the Red vs Blue Wiki. I learned about you guys' argument and his subsequent banning, and though I'll definitely try to stay neutral on this matter as best I can, he has had a bit of an... apologetic tone. He (and I) understands why he was banned, and fully accepts that he was in the wrong. Though he doesn't want his ban lifted, he'd like the limit changed to August 24, 2013, as he believes he will more likely then not have changed by then. The blog where this was discussed can be found here. For the record, I do not at all advocate racism or accusations of racism. For one of my age, I've experienced enough racism to last a lifetime. I am aware that he was in the wrong. And so is he. Essentially, I'm acting as a messenger between you and he to deliver his apology. As the old phrase goes, don't shoot the messenger. Arbington 20:43, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * He also took on an apologetic tone and said he'd change the last two times he was banned. Of course, last time he claimed this, it wasn't until after he stopped with the harassing emails, which is why this time he was banned from sending emails as well. He's done this same song and dance twice before. SpartHawg948 20:56, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. Well, seeing as he still wants to be banned for nearly three years, I'm almost willing to think/say he actually might be willing to change this time around. And, for the record, I thought he'd only been banned once before, not twice. Makes his side seem a little... repetitive. Arbington 20:59, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and based on what I saw on his blog there, I'm not at all moved to mercy. I can't take a joke, I ban him then once he can't defend himself, I besmirch his name (when all I was doing was explaining the ban, I can't help it if stating why he was banned seems like besmirching to him), he implied I'm a liar, by saying I commented that he was a perennial problem (he was), he's just telling it how it is and telling the truth (meaning I AM a racist) and then he links to the blog in question but still lies about what it says. What a class act. I can't see why I wouldn't want to lessen his ban. I don't really follow baseball (more of a hockey man myself), but one thing about the game I do like is the concept of three strikes and you're out. This was, quite literally, strike three for ralok. SpartHawg948 21:05, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, you're a hockey fan? I'm pretty much one of very few in Texas myself. Go Stars! Anyways, yeah, it doesn't look all that great for him. Also, my apologies for the edit conflicts. I'm a bit of a perfectionist. Hate making mistakes. Particularly with words and grammar. Arbington 21:11, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflcit) Sorry to jump in here but Ralok broke multiple rules multiple times over, and the admins were lenient with him for a time. However the last time, he just went too far, and after the story about the emails, I'd have to say that if you didn't learn from your mistakes once, even twice, and after being warned countless times, then you probably won't learn from them. Ralok had many chances and didn't learn from the last times, so something tells me he wouldn't learn from them this time. I like the sports analogy however, three strikes and you’re out. Not much of a baseball either, prefer Hockey, Basketball, and Soccer myself. Lancer1289 21:15, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict again...) No worries. And as it happens, I'm a bit of a Stars fan myself. My roommate hates them as he's a huge Sharks fan (and I suppose I'm obligated to as well, seeing as Santa Clara is a suburb of San Jose, and we live about five minutes from HP Pavilion), but my true loyalty lies with my "hometown" team (meaning the team from the same state I'm from, if not the same town), the Columbus Blue Jackets. SpartHawg948 21:16, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Well yea I mean at first I thought it was his first and he did talk about you negativly but now hes talkin about you in a good way and after reading about earlier offenses I relize that he did deserve to be banned but not for forever. He jst wants for his ban to last for about 3 years I mean it wasn't vandilsim was it? He says 3 years because he will likely change his attitude by then and be a better person.I really hope this canges your mind.Sniperteam82308 21:19, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit Conflict)Yeah, the Stars are my hometown team. I live here in sunny Texas. Never really occurred to me that there are hockey fans on the net. Still, sorry if this got in the way of anything, just trying to help out someone apparently semi-innocent and realising the rest of the story. My bad. Arbington 21:23, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually Ralok was a problem frequently here, causing long "discussions" on talk pages, which accomplished nothing and lead to arguments and usually him throwing inappropriate language, frequently insulting other users, breaking the language rules, and frequently calling other user's names. Frankly I support the ban, for the last three reasons, as he was given multiple chances, he didn't change, and I don't think he will. Also calling one of our admins that, isn’t the best way to welcome yourself here. Frankly Spart is a very nice guy and I have yet to see a situation where he took things personally and didn’t act with objectivity. Ralok had his change and when warned multiple times, he didn’t listen, and didn’t change. Also he and you insulted Spart’s integrity as an admin, and if that was thrown against me, I’d be very insulted. Don’t know about Spart’s feelings.
 * As to Hockey, I am a huge Blackhawks fan. Yes, I lived near Chicago all my life, so I'm not just jumping on the bandwagon of them wining the Stanly Cup. Lancer1289 21:28, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Yeah, his blog is pretty one-sided. At least he took some of the bad stuff down, but he still doesn't mention his past bans for bad behavior, the harassing emails he sent the admins last time he was banned, or all the times I've gone out on a limb to help him (even once going to another wiki and demanding that a ban that was unjust be undone, which it was). Ralok has been shown much more patience than the average potty-mouth (just ask Revan's Exile or CAW4), and for the life of me, I can't see why this was now, but this time was once too much. SpartHawg948 21:31, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry, I didn't once mean to insult Spart's integrity. Personally I find him to be a generally amiable person with whom discussion is not unwelcome. I might have been a little uneducated on the whole story, seeing as I came into the wiki during a period of helpful ralok-related activity. And trust me, I remember CAW4. Arbington 21:35, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflcit x? )Actually I was talking about Sniperteam82308, and his comments on that blog. I wouldn't have taken you comments as insulting my integrity, if it was the one in question. You were trying to be neutral, which is how I try to be, and commenting form an objective standpoint. I can't fault you for that. However I don't know what Spart's state of mind is about this ,his feelings towards the situation, so I can't speak about him. I'm commenting from my standpoint here. And I remember both users Spart mentioned, both were given multiple changes, and both didn’t change. Lancer1289 21:52, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if im butting into business that not mine but I cant help it,what did he do that got him a life time ban.--Legionwrex 21:36, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Repeat violations of site language and conduct policy, which he had been warned about (and banned for) by several admins. Basically, this is his third strike. SpartHawg948 21:38, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflcit x?) Yes he violated the policies multiple times and every time he was warned about it, or asked to stop, and he didn't.
 * (edit conflcit x?) Now I'm curious, what wiki was that? Also I have read through it and he doesn't mention his behavior, the emails, or the times that Spart and others have tried to help him. He was shown much, much more patience than others, and this one was just over the line, uncalled for, and one time too many. Lancer1289 21:52, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Ok,thanks.--Legionwrex 21:41, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I'm contemplating going onto the RvB wiki blog in question and getting the other side of the story out there, but I'm uncertain as to the reception I'd get, and I'm also not too sure if I want to give ralok any more fuel or encouragement. SpartHawg948 21:43, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, I say let sleeping dogs lie. Arbington 21:45, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict x?) Personally I wouldn’t as it would probably be a poor reception, and you migh just add fuel to the fire. However that’s me. Lancer1289 21:52, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

I say go there,I was just there,youll want to here what they have to say about you.--Legionwrex 21:49, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Indeed. This latest bit about "I may be bi-polar" is a hoot though. As someone who has been diagnosed as bipolar (and still manages to function) I can tell you that his activities are not those of a bi-polar person. So yeah, after that last bit, trying to blame a serious psychological condition and attributing to it non-existent symptoms, I'm not sure I'm in the best frame of mind for it... SpartHawg948 21:50, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Eh,its your dessision.--Legionwrex 21:52, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably. It's all good though. Maybe I will go over there and comment, maybe not. I already know what they're saying about me, just not sure if I want to comment myself. SpartHawg948 21:54, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit Conflict)Indeed, it'd probably only lead to more anger on both sides. Still,, this has actually gone surprisingly well. I was afraid I was going to get my online ass handed to me for this. :) Arbington 21:56, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Now why would you worry about such a thing? You're doing nothing wrong, just trying to help mediate a situation. And, regardless of my feelings towards the other party, I have nothing but respect for you for making the attempt. SpartHawg948 21:57, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed,it has been going well.--Legionwrex 21:58, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it has aprat from me getting edit conflicted I don't konw how many times. I have respect for you also Arbington, you keep a level head, and manage to present htings in a neutral manor. That is soomething that I can't fault. Lancer1289 22:00, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Good to hear, and thanks for the respect and all, guys. Did you see he made another blog? Apparently he wants to clean RvB Wiki of the bad image of you he has presented. Arbington 22:02, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Whatever... I just want to get past all this. Based on his past behavior, and on what another banned user did once, and on a hunch, I'd guessed he'd go to another wiki and start complaining. I just wasn't sure which one. I never would have guessed the RvB wiki. SpartHawg948 22:04, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Can you give me a link.--Legionwrex 22:04, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok what user are you talking about and I'm curioius, what wiki did you ask for his ban to be lifted on? Just curious here. Lancer1289 22:07, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit Conflict)Well... his avatar is kinda Luke McKay's artists rendition of Washington. I came across his blog while browsing the RvB Wiki, and realized that I should've realized a while ago he'd be a member there. Arbington 22:08, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind.
 * (several edit conflicts later...) Well, there's the ultimate nail in the coffin - here's a hint folks... if you're trying to get on my good side, NEVER SAY GOOD THINGS ABOUT THE DETROIT RED WINGS. As many mid-westerners know, Ohioans and Michagan-ers (or whatever they call themselves) get along about as well as ninjas and pirates, which is why Ohio had to beat the crap out of Michigan in a war once. No fooling, we actually fought and won a war against Michigan. And the Red Wings just suck. I'd sooner say nice things about Hitler, Stalin, and the Antichrist than compliment the Red Wings. Lousy stinking Detroit... :P SpartHawg948 22:10, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to sign.--Legionwrex 22:10, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I'm a Stars fan, and thus I absolutely despise the Detroit Red Wings. Which is why we beat them for the Cup. Or sometimes they beat us. They cheated though. I'm sure of it. Go Stars! Arbington 22:12, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict x2) Sorry have to go with the hometown team on my end. Blackhawks, even if they did take a while to win the cup this time around, but I guess six Olympians helps. Also Spart could you answer my questions above. Lancer1289 22:18, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Detroit does cheat. Lousy Michiganites. Or Michiganers. Or Michigonians. Or whatever they're called. Them and their fancy cheating hockey teams and their octopi. SpartHawg948 22:18, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, totally missed your question. It was one of the Mass Effect fan fiction wikis. Not sure which one... SpartHawg948 22:20, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and for missing my question, don't worry about it since I got edit conflicted I don't know how many times. I'm sure you know the feeling. Lancer1289 22:21, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry when I called you an ass that was when I thought you banned him forever on his first offense but if he got banned twice before for doing the same thing then he should have relized he wasnt suppose to and just stopped.Sniperteam82308 22:55, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries! I didn't take it personally or anything. As I admitted, I can be a bit of a jerk at times. And you were just responding to what you read, which was only one side of the story. If I had banned ralok for no reason on his first offense, as his blog implied, I'd be the first to call myself an ass! So yeah, no worries. Water under the bridge. SpartHawg948 22:57, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

More commentary on a related note
So, I was thinking a little bit ago while doing some non-related activities. (And in case anyone is wondering, this is a separate section both to kind of distinguish from the above, and to avoid edit conflicts) It's funny, because this whole thing with ralok started because of a comment he made that was a total "swing and a miss", as they say, a comment that actually reflected how little he knows me and my thinking. I commented that I didn't think the Shadow Broker could be a vorcha because the vorcha can't even develop space flight, or even speech. Now, ralok saw this and assumed, for reasons I won't begin to speculate on, that my comment was based on a notion of racial inferiority on the part of the vorcha, as if the only possible reason anyone could say that the vorcha can't achieve space flight is because of racial limitations.

Now, those of you who know me (or read my talk page [look a few sections up], or my user page, or my book blog) will know that one of my favorite books is Carnage and Culture by Victor Davis Hanson, and that VDH (as he's referred to by fans) is one of my all-around favorite authors/historians/political commentators. And VDH espouses the idea (which I subscribe to) that the reason a civilization succeeds or fails has nothing to do with something as silly and immutable and out of the civilizations control as race, but rather on the basis of their culture. Certain cultural aspects will promote success, and certain aspects will promote failure or at best stagnation. Thus, when I stated that the vorcha couldn't even achieve space-flight, I wasn't implying that they are incapable of doing so because of race, but simply because theirs is a culture that does not place value in such endeavors, or in research and science, period. It was for this reason that I made my statement, and for this reason that ralok's comment so blind-sided me, and caused me to react with such vehemence, as I find the idea of racial inferiority to be repugnant, and as it (honestly) never really occurs to me, as race isn't a big factor in my world-view. As such, I responded a little vehemently at first, though what ultimately happened to him was due to his own comments and actions and a review of his history here. I didn't really want to start a blog about this, so I put it here instead. Feel free to comment if that strikes your fancy, and if not, at least I got to hear the sound of my own voice! :P SpartHawg948 22:54, September 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Eh, contemporary social issues seem irrelevant here. You were speaking of an entirely fictional species, according to in-game information. That said, the status of vorcha movements is exceedingly vague. The planet Volturno mentions that vorcha have been trying to take the planet for themselves, unsuccessfully.  Have they been hitching rides? Flying themselves? Teleporting?  Flying through space with modified Pyro packs? Wonder what will become of the vorcha, and what we might learn of them, in the next game (or DLC, for that matter). AnotherRho 23:10, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, based on what we know of the vorcha from canon info, they would have to have gotten there by stowing away on ships. That or getting transported by Blood Pack vessels, or possibly on ships bought (or stolen) from others, as they themselves do not have indigenously developed space travel. My entire point with this section though was to point out the fallacy of automatically assuming that any comments critical of a different racial, cultural, or ethnic group must be racist, or due to racist motives or thinking. SpartHawg948 23:12, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

1 Codex! 2 Codices! 3 Codices! Ah! Ah! Ah!
Good tidings! On this the eve of the momentous release of The Lair of the Shadow Broker, I wonder if I might trouble you to swing by the project forum post for Forum:Narrated Codex entries and cast your vote (and comment if you feel the need) at your earliest convenience. I recall that you like to be apprised of all ongoing efforts, so I'm just doing my due diligence. Please ignore this if you've already looked at the proposal but have decided to abstain.

Cheers! -- Dammej ( talk ) 03:27, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. Talk about awesome references. I sure got a good chuckle out of this one. :) SpartHawg948 03:29, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * The Count is probably one of my all-time favorites. Something about fake transylvanian accents (or whatever accent that is. Eastern Europe is not my strong suit.) is just so endearing to me. -- Dammej ( talk ) 03:51, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Liara/Squad
I was wondering, since Liara becomes a squad member in LotSB, should we perhaps include a subheader in the Characters page under ME2 for the DLC to show Liara as a member of the squad? In the same sort of way shown at the Dragon Age wiki? Just a thought. --The Illusive Man 04:56, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I'm not entirely sold, because she's only a squad member for a little bit, but it's not a bad idea. SpartHawg948 05:00, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know it's only a temporary thing, but the reason I ask is due to the fact you can distribute points into her powers and has a character class like the other teammates. --The Illusive Man 05:08, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Given it some thought, and it sounds like an OK idea, provided that it is explicitly stated that, unlike the other DLC squad members, she only is a squad member for one mission. This can probably be done by entitling her section "Lair of the Shadow Broker" and placing it under the squad members section, or "DLC Specific Squadmember" or "Lair of the Shadow Broker Squad Member" or something like that. SpartHawg948 05:19, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

LotSB Romance Stuff
Now that the most recent speculation craze has ended, I can address this.

Back on topic. I didn't see it on Jack's page so I didn't know the precedent thing, must have missed it. Personally I don't think that kind of information belongs there. For all the romances it will basically be a copy paste job with only details changed. I think they just state the obvious and contain information that is either hinted at from the game, or already state things from the dialogue or things that will already be in the articles.

Also just a quick question, are you going to be staying up that late from now on? Seriously you were probably still on when I logged on this morning. Lancer1289 19:57, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just to point out... I don't like to nitpick, but every time you do this it kind of bugs me. A president is the head of an organization or country. Established proceedings or guidelines used to justify or support future rulings is precedent. (The key being that it's precedent as in precede or precedes, i.e. comes before)


 * I see no reason to include all the other romance stuff but not include the LOTSB romance info. It seems about as relevant as, say, describing the romance cutscenes. And no, I don't plan on staying up that late. If you'll note the edits I was making and the spacing between them, I was staying up to accomplish one goal I had put my mind towards. SpartHawg948 20:11, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow I didn't even notice the precedent thing, so thanks for pointing that out. As to the LotSB thing, I still don't see a need for it, but I've never been one to argue with logic when it's presented, which is something you seem to be very good at I might add. I may not like it, but again, I really don't like arguing with logic, it never goes anywhere.
 * As to the lateness. I was just curious, and I didn't check your contributions, which I just did. I see the SB dialogue. Interesting to say the least. I was just curious, that is all. Lancer1289 20:18, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Removed.
I've changed my previous message since my edit was removed..no idea why though. Can you put any light on it?
 * I don't know what Spart will say, but I'm thinking it will be similar to what I'm about to. Your edit removed because it was pure speculation, which we have a very low tolerance for here. See the Manual of Style on speculation for more. We have absolutely no solid evidence that Matriarch Aethyta is Liara's mother. She is looking at a picture of Liara, but that is all we have. Also hints aren't trivia to begin with. We are an encyclopedic content of the ME universe, and hints have no place in an encyclopedia. Lancer1289 12:51, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah... you're really talking to the wrong guy here. I didn't remove it, so I can't really say why it was removed. I can speculate, but that's it. You'd need to talk to the editor who actually removed it, in this case JakePT. SpartHawg948 19:33, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

More Links
Spart, can I please get some input about something on my talk page. Thanks. Lancer1289 18:24, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Spotlight
Since I get emails from Wikia about new staff blogs, not sure why, but after doing some checking, I saw that we have never been nominated for a spotlight. I was just curious what you thought about either yourself or me just asking Wikia to spotlight us for a period of time. Links Blog and Spotlights. I'm not sure what you think, but I think it would be a good idea. Lancer1289 21:09, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. SpartHawg948 21:13, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright then, I'll probably post something in about an hour. Lancer1289 21:20, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on Hannah Shepard's page. :)

Ace
 * Indeed! And good looking out adding the email! I usually play as a spacer, but I hadn't noticed that we didn't have that email. SpartHawg948 00:00, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

I really hope we see her in Mass Effect 3, that would awesome. I so forgot to add the header for ME2, I was just happy that email looked good. lol

Well we just have one hiccup with the spotlight as you can see on my talk page. We apparently need a link to New Images in the sidebar, so I've been taking a look around at other wiki's to see how they do it. They either have it top level, in this case along with the links for "Cerberus Daily News", "Mass Effect Overview", etc, or they have it within another smaller grouping. Me I'd say just have it in a smaller menu with the Recent Blog posts, I was thinking this: The new pages thing might help get new pages up, especially with DLC packs or something. Anyway thoughts. Lancer1289 03:53, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Recent Activity (Links to Recent Changes)
 * Recent Blog Posts
 * New Files
 * New Pages
 * Just butting in here, but first, I'd like to say that Lancer's idea seems quite good to me for what that's worth, and second, congrats on the potential Spotlight status for Mass Effect Wiki. Arbington 04:00, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this sound like a good idea Spart, or do you have some reservations or other ideas? Lancer1289 19:05, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not that huge a fan, as New Files seems like a stupid thing to link to (and to make a condition for being a spotlight wiki), but whatever. If we have to, your recent activity menu sounds like the best way to do it. SpartHawg948 19:14, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm not a big fan either. When I was notified of it, it seemed arbitrary to me, but to quote you "whatever". I'll update the menu then, still seems a little arbitrarily to me as well. Lancer1289 19:17, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Just figured I should inform you that we are going to be spotlighted by Wikia, yeah and sound the trumpets. Spotlights Talk Page. I'll add this to the Wiki news section of the main page, seems appropriate.Lancer1289 19:20, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Spart
Just don't understand your thought, and curious to know it. "It assumes that humans can be turned into energy weapons": do you doubt that human-something goes into the human reaper? Or what do you mean? I know there's a history of beef on this point, and I am not interested in that. Just curious, as I said, to know your thought. --AnotherRho
 * No. Of course I acknowledge that humans go into the Human-Reaper. Only a complete idiot would deny this. I mean that, making statements to the effect that humans are the sole material used in the construction of the Human-Reaper assumes that everything about it, including the energy weapons that it uses to attack you, are made solely of humans and the components that can be obtained by liquefying a human body. Frankly, seeing as I already came out and said in direct response to your query on Commdor's page that we all seemed to be in agreement that humans go into the Human-Reaper, I can't for the life of me see why you'd ask again here. SpartHawg948 02:05, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes we all acknowledge that humans to into the Human-Reaper, but implying that they are the only thing makes quite a number of assumptions. There are probably other things that have to go into it because I doubt that those weapons are made from the stuff that the humans are broken down into. Lancer1289 02:09, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Peace friend. I asked here to remove it from there and the heat. And I quoted your phrase, so, read it, and you'll see why I was confused. You wrote '..."made partially of liquified humans etc." is asinine because it assumes humans can be turned into energy weapons', but rather meant that "made wholly of humans etc." is asinine for that reason. Cool? --AnotherRho 02:17, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a bit confusingly worded thanks to the multiple edit conflicts I got attempting to post the original message I wanted and then that modified version. I'm not angry, I just really hate having to repeat myself, and as such, having to answer a second query from you as to whether I believed humans went into the Human-Reaper (which I should think goes without saying) was extremely frustrating, especially when my first answer was still right there for anyone to read. SpartHawg948 02:21, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I can understand. Edit conflicts, history of beef, and whatever, is frustrating. The wording did contradict the obvious, and contradictions stimulate the intellect, and I, studying great books for the last decade or so and tending to react to such stimuli, was forced by natural necessity to ask what you could have meant.  I probably should have checked myself until a later time, or never, but....  (Trying to think of some pithy line of levity, but coming up short!). AnotherRho 02:29, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't quote Nietzsche on my talk page. I don't ask for much as far as what people put here, but I can't stand Nietzsche. SpartHawg948 02:31, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Done. Confucius say, man who run behind car get exhausted. --AnotherRho 02:33, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Much better... I'm trying hard and can't think of one murderous dictator who based his theories off of Confucius, or... well, I'm not going to go into the rest of my issues with a particular philosopher of the supposed 'Age of Enlightenment'. SpartHawg948 02:34, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Tyrants of course use whatever they can to further their (sole) advantage. --- On the other side: Confucius of course didn't speak of cars; it's a (bad) joke (another one: "Man who run in front of car gets tired."). - (p.s., if you want to delete this entire section from your page, you've got my permission to remove my text here) AnotherRho 02:40, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) And I, of course, realize it was a joke. And yes, tyrants can use whatever they want to their advantage. But that wasn't really the case with Nietzsche, who's philosophy shaped what those tyrants (or one in particular) wanted. It wasn't twisted to suit a belief, it was one of the cornerstones of that belief. SpartHawg948 02:44, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * And no, I don't want to remove any of this. That would go counter to my principles of transparency and openness. I've only deleted something from my talk page once, at the other persons request, and wasn't happy to do so. SpartHawg948 02:44, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

All right. I guess I just regret bringing anything up. Oh well. No shorter road to restoration of the spirit than a good night's rest. AnotherRho 03:21, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Slipped through the Cracks
Since a new video was uploaded today, and nominated for deletion by Commdor, was offline at the time, I was thinking that I'd just check to see if there are any other vidoes we missed, and look how many I found. Wow that was a lot of videos, and some were modified by me, Silverstrike, and I saw a few others there as well to remove categories and were ignorant of the video policy at the time, or we forgot the delete tags. Anyway, the problem I ran into was that five of the vidoes are linked/displayed on other pages, including two user pages. Video:Mass Effect 2 Bug linked on Forum:Bug on Citadel following Thane's son; Video:Mass Effect 2 - Minos Wasteland / Fortis System / Aequitas linked on Talk:N7: Abandoned Mine; Video:Mass Effect 2 - Crescent Nebula / Lusarn System / Tarith linked on Talk:N7: Blood Pack Communications Relay; Video:AH YES, REAPERS linked on User:NoahSoener; and finally Video:Mass Effect 2- Mordin's Safe Sex Talk linked on User:TheCzechDuck. I was wondering what to do in those situations as they are in comments by other users and on user pages. I was just thinking of leaving them notes about it. I'lll remove the redlinks once the videos are deleted.

Sorry about the wall of text and links. Lancer1289 19:48, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * F 'em. The policy is right there for anyone to see, and it's not new. It's been site policy for years now. Delete the videos. If they don't like it, too bad. Direct them to the FAQ. SpartHawg948 20:56, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok then, I put them up for deletion, and since we have that no video policy, should we just get rid of the videos now? Sorry if that seems like a stupid question. Based on your responce, I might have another question. Lancer1289 21:01, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Delete them now. Site policy is what it is. And if the answer to your other question isn't 17, don't ask it, because that's the only answer you'll get from me! :P SpartHawg948 21:05, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why 17? Usually I hear 42. and I actually now have another question. What does :P mean anyway. I keep seeing that and I have no idea what it means. However the main question I have is should we just say in the CG that any videos uploaded will be deleted immediately. Lancer1289
 * 42 is too trite and overused. And :P is the emote for sticking your tongue out. It's an indication that my statement is meant in jest and should not be taken seriously. Sure, change the CG to reflect that. SpartHawg948 21:13, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well thank you for yet again enlightening me on that. Also I'll change the CG and I have removed the redlinnks above. Lancer1289 21:20, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Liara as a squadmate
Oh god, I'm sorry, that was simply a mistake on my part. Of course I know that and I'm sorry. Still my question stands, why did you undo my edit. Swedish guy 09:38, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said in my edit summary, the matter of how to handle Liara has been discussed and your edit did not meet the requirements, which are actually on this very page, in the section entitled Liara/Squad. Your edit did not clearly identify that she was a temporary squad member for one mission and one mission only. It merely plopped her down right in the middle of the permanent squad members with a note saying (temporary LOTSB), which was far from clear as far as meaning goes, and which messed up the formatting of the entire section. If Liara is to be added, it needs to be done right, not fast. And doing it right most likely means adding a separate section for temporary squad members, not just placing her into the squad members section with a vague note that messes up the formatting. And in the future, do please be more careful when leaving messages. It takes all of two seconds to ensure you're editing a user talk page and not a user page. SpartHawg948 09:44, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * putting her under a 'temporary squadmate' section would be redundant, since she's THE only such as of yet (well now that I think about it Wilson also serves that criteria, but he's really more of a plot device than a character in his own right).
 * Not sure I see the point. After all, there's only one protagonist to each game too. And they have their own sections. SpartHawg948 09:54, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that it would look kinda out of place to have a section for one character which you can't necessarily have (think about the poor basterds in Eastern Europe). The protagonist section still serves kind of a purpose since we have a different protagonist in Mass Effect Galaxy, but no other temporary squadmates worth mention. Swedish guy 10:00, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * So it's less out of place to put a temporary squad member who only appears for one mission who you can't even necessarily have (sorry Eastern Europe) lumped in with the permanent squad members who aren't under the same geographic limitations? I can't say I see any logic in that. SpartHawg948 10:02, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you make it clear that it's a temporary character; then yes (and personally I think my note made that very clear). For simplicity if nothing else. If we add a new 'Temporary Squadmate' section then we would have to include Jenkins (who literally dies on his first enemy encounter) and Wilson, which would be redundant and would give the wrong idea about both them and Liara as squadmates. Swedish guy 10:08, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that you mention it, Wilson has more reason to be in the squad members section than Liara does. At least everyone all over the world has Wilson in their squad at one point in time, unlike Liara. SpartHawg948 10:04, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, Wilson doesn't even have a list of his powers or anything on his page like the rest of the squadmates. While that doesn't mean anything in itself, it clearly shows what an 'importance' he has to the story overall. As I said he's more of a plot device than anything else. Swedish guy 10:14, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict - let me answer, please) No, (temporary LOTSB) was not very clear. As for temporary squad members, I'm fine with both Jenkins and Wilson being included, as they are temporary squad members, just like Liara is. However, adding Liara to the squad members section would be giving the wrong idea about her. I can't for the life of me see how calling Liara a temporary squad member when she IS a temporary squad member would be giving the wrong idea. I'm all for accuracy, and plopping Liara in with the permanent squad members is not accurate. It's not visually appealing (since it ruins the formatting), and it just does not make sense. As you yourself said, you can't necessarily have her in your squad, and even then, it's only for one mission. I'm sorry, I'm still of the opinion that a new temporary squad members section is the only accurate, sensible, and viable way to go about this. SpartHawg948 10:15, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither Jenkins nor Wilson has anything close to the same impact to the story as Liara does (remember that LotSB connects to ME3) so putting them in the same category is misleading. If you would tell about the squadmates in ME2 to a friend who hasn't even heard about Mass Effect, who would you mention first; Liara or Wilson? Swedish guy 10:21, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * And it doesn't 'ruin' the formatting, it's one line which flows quite nicely into the rest of the page. Swedish guy 10:24, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mention either. Liara isn't (IMO) a real squad member. She's only in your squad for (at most) one mission, and only if you have the LOTSB DLC. If push came to shove though, I'd mention Wilson, as he is in your very first squad during the very first mission of the game. I'm arguing for accuracy, and you are arguing for vague and subjective standards like "impact to the story". And yes, by placing a larger gap between two of the middle rows than had existed previously or did exist in any other such space, it did ruin the formatting. I'm sorry my friend, but you simply aren't selling me on this one. I'm going for accuracy here, so I'm pretty much set on the temporary squad member section. SpartHawg948 10:29, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think something like 'impact to the story' is anything vague. The entire concept of Mass Effect is for the player to make an impact to the story, which they can do with Liara, but not with Wilson. Liara also has a greater role in the ME franchise overall. Plus, you can't have neither Zaeed (one of the best Squadmates) or Kasumi unless you pay up. And you can't have Morinth at all unless you sacrificed her mother, but that's cleared up on their individual pages, no need there to make a new section for them; so I can't really see why it should be so for Liara. Still if you have made your mind up, there's no way for me to change you. Let's just say we're two stubborn people with conflicting ideas. Swedish guy 10:40, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * But there's no need to make a new section for Morinth, Zaeed, or Kasumi because they can still be recruited as permanent squad members. Sure, you have to pay for Kasumi (not for Zaeed though, his DLC is free) and have to sacrifice Samara to get Morinth, but once you do, they're yours for the rest of the game or till they die in the suicide mission. This is not the case with Liara. Again, and I have no idea why I need to keep repeating this - SHE IS ONLY A SQUAD MEMBER FOR ONE MISSION. Her impact on the overall franchise is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with whether or not she should be in a squad member or temporary squad member category. It's as relevant to that discussion as her skin color is. Liara is a special circumstance, a one-mission only squad member that only some Mass Effect players even have the chance to have in their squads once! This is why a temporary squad member category is the only accurate way to do it. But, as we can see, you've made your case, and I've made mine. Neither of us seems to be budging, so I concur. Two stubborn people are we. Agree to disagree! :) SpartHawg948 10:48, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Coincidental name trivia
im just sayin this since u removed my comment on garrus' profile archangel actually is a city in russia and so is samara look at a Russian map and i also enjoy mass effect 1&2 very much so
 * I'm well aware of Russian geography. I don't need a lesson. I also know that the actual name of the city you call Archangel is Arkhangelsk. And, as was stated when both those items were removed, they were removed because the similarities in name appear to be nothing more than coincidence. If you can provide one valid link between the people and the cities other than the names, let's hear it. If it's legit, the items can go back in the articles. If not, it's nothing more than a coincidence, and site trivia policy clearly states that coincidental name similarities are not trivia. SpartHawg948 03:55, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, "Codex Audio"
The narrated audio of Codex entries, allegedly extracted from Mass Effect. We have dismissed that claim.

Alternate title: Incoming!

With the week's voting period for the proposal expired (and passed with overwhelming support), I'm prepared to upload all of the codex entries associated with the games. In total, there are 84 entries shared between them, not counting 4 cut entries (one in ME for Harvesters, plus the M-100, Drell, Thermal Clips, and Cain entries from ME2). I'm not planning on uploading the cut entries since they technically aren't a part of the codex, but if you think they'd be valuable, I could upload them too. (I imagine you feel the same as I do, but I bring them up anyway just in case I am surprised)

I once again solicit your help with implementing the other portions of the proposal, however:
 * 1) The contents of User:Dammej/monaco.css need to be copied to the end of MediaWiki:Common.css, and
 * 2) The contents of User:Dammej/monaco.js need to be copied to the end of MediaWiki:Common.js.

After that, we can start rockin out with our... clocks... out adding the templates to all the primary codex entries. That's what I call a party! YEEEEEEEaaaaahh-ok not a party, but still a nifty new addition to the wiki, I think. Ready and... begin kicking the turian councilor's ass! -- Dammej ( talk ) 06:11, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Added. And personally, I'm going to rock out with my smock out. That's just how I roll. :P SpartHawg948 06:16, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow has it been a week already, how the times flies. Anyway looking forward to this. Lancer1289 06:23, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * The uploads begin! I'll inform ya'll when they're all up.-- Dammej ( talk ) 06:46, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Finito! By the way, I didn't upload two entries for the "Rise of the Alliance" entry: One for Paragon outcome with Udina presiding on the council, and one for the renegade outcome with Anderson presiding. The only difference between them and the ones already upload are the names that are said, so I figured I'd strive for least redundancy. But if we desire them for sake of being complete, I could upload them as well. Makes no nevermind to me. -- Dammej ( talk ) 07:17, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's still trying to play them first with Quicktime, and not working, requiring me to go and manually set it to native browser support. For me it is, anyways. SpartHawg948 07:19, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Let me verify that it's working as intended on mine. In the meantime, you might try deleting your cookies for this site. The player keeps a cookie that remembers which player you last used, so if it for some reason is remembering you used quicktime, it'd pick that regardless of how we set the priority. -- Dammej ( talk ) 07:25, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not sure on that one, Spart's problem that is, as to why they can't play. Works fine for me.
 * As to the entries, personally I think that becuase people can choose Anderson or Udina, I'd say that uploading them both would be the best way to go. Otherwise we only hear one, and some people may get confused if they don't hear exactly what is in their game. Uploading both, even if only three words are changed, is probably the best idea, but that's me. Lancer1289 07:24, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I finished adding all the current entries into the Codex articles. I'll upload the other two entries for Rise of the Alliance as Lancer requested. Still looking for an answer on cut codex entries: Yea or Nay? -- Dammej ( talk ) 09:00, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. I can't really see a reason not to. We note that they are not canon, so I don't see why we can't have them here as well, for posterity's sake. SpartHawg948 09:02, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Codex Audio bugs/troubleshooting
New section, since I don't want to clutter the discussion about which entries should/should not be updated with problem-solving sorta talk.

I reinstalled QT on this machine and loaded up a codex entry in Firefox, and it picked the native player that's built into Firefox (as the code added to MediaWiki:Common.js is intended to do). Quicktime was bumped down to the bottom of the list on mine, and was not used to play. Since I can't reproduce the issue that you're having anymore, it leads me to believe that it's something to do with your client. Some possibilities off the top of my head:
 * For whatever reason, your client isn't downloading the newly-updated javascript that's supposed to re-order the player priority. You can check if the new stuff is being used by clicking the "more..." option for the players, and verifying that "Native Browser support" is at the top of that list, with the "Quicktime" option appearing right before "No Player".
 * If you don't see the list as I describe it, then you need to force the client to download the most recent version of the page. This can be done by using the keys "CTRL+F5" to force it to redownload the full page.
 * The other possibility I can think of is a cookie is remembering the quicktime player as your 'preferred' player, causing the page to ignore any priority settings that we have.
 * To delete this cookie (in firefox), go to Tools-> Options.
 * Click the "Privacy" tab
 * Click the link-looking thing in the center of the window that says "Remove individual cookies"
 * Type "masseffect" into the search filter
 * Find the cookie from masseffect.wikia.com which has the name "ogg_player" listed in the right-hand column
 * Delete it by clicking the "Remove Cookie" button
 * Reload any page that contains audio links. They should now have reverted to picking the native player as first priority.

Other than those, I don't really have much more information... Let me know if those work. If not, we'll see if we can figure something out from there. -- Dammej ( talk ) 07:45, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think I got it working a little while ago, actually. SpartHawg948 08:03, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, neat! Nevermind then. :) Glad this project is going off mostly without a hitch. -- Dammej ( talk ) 08:05, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm doing this wrong.
I just noticed an interesting glitch in the ME2 universe regarding The Consort, Shai'ira. I noticed you were the last person to edit the page so I was wondering if you would be interested in it. Please contact me at cooliocatio@hotmail.com and I sincerely apologize if I've done this incorrectly, I'm not exactly familiar with this thing ^^
 * No thanks. I don't make a habit of accepting unsolicited requests to email people I've never met or spoken to before. If you want to run something by me, you can post it here, on this talk page. SpartHawg948 00:55, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty then! While listening to the Galactic News terminals on the citadel, there was a report stating that Shai'ira would be leaving the Citadel due to reports of her leaking information told to her during one of her sessions. I'm playing on an imported file from ME1, and during my play through of ME1 I settled that dispute between the Elcor and Shai'ira and the Elcor dropped the charges.
 * That information is actually already noted in the Sha'ira article. Quoted from the Mass Effect 2 section: "During a news broadcast, rumors have spread that Sha'ira may be leaving due to bad press, particularly rumours of "intelligence leaks" (due to a bug with the import.)" SpartHawg948 01:46, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Well, then apparently I'm a blind idiot! And apologies if I worried or insulted you by the email request, I normally don't like to clog up pages with my frequently dumb questions.
 * I wasn't worried or offended, I just don't give out my email to people I don't know, which I would have had to do to email you. SpartHawg948 01:50, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the Hackett Question
I was just assuming Hackett's action of giving the dog tags to Liara was set in stone. Never occurred to me that the romance may have motivated Liara to do something that would change the history of things, evident by the differing dialogue. Anyhoo, thanks for correcting me on that. --Commander Shepard 05:29, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * No need for apologies or anything like that. You weren't sure, so you asked. I can definitely respect that. And yeah, it isn't really something that you'd think of, that romancing Liara in the first game would impact this dialogue, but apparently it does. Those kids at BioWare, always making plot points have impact in all sorts of unexpected places! :P SpartHawg948 05:46, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Disappearing blogs
Spart, I'm not seeing certain blog entries. For example, the ones we posted last night (about Shep and Cerberus) are nowhere to be found. Any idea why that might be happening? Thanks. --AnotherRho 19:51, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * No idea. I'm seeing all sorts of blog posts on the Recent Changes page, but they're all showing as redlinks. Methinks it's an issue with Wikia. SpartHawg948 19:59, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever it is, I hope they fix it soon. Someone made a post in reference to one of my own, and all I can tell is that A) They spelled my username wrong (which is always nice), and B) They seem to quote quite a bit of a prior comment I made. And from that I can infer that C) It's likely a post critical of a comment I made. I want to see the full details! Curse you, wikia! SpartHawg948 20:34, September 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Update - I was just getting ready to contact Wikia about it, but it seems that one of our editors has already done so! Thanks Dammej! :) SpartHawg948 20:39, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into it (same redlink phenom. here, too). And thanks to Dammej as well. =-_AnotherRho 20:47, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see the entry of which you speak, Spart. Alas, Mr. Haug, what will you do?  - Seriously, why spell it as you do, if you don't mind my asking?  I noticed the Warthog avatar, but... ? AnotherRho 21:07, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Because we "in the biz" don't call it the Warthog, we call it the Hawg. SpartHawg948 21:21, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. "I hear it goes that way in the biz." - When I was a kid, I used to play some ancient computer game called "A-10 Tank Killer".  Was a great game, with those terrible SVGA chunky graphics.  Used to love that jet after I discovered it. --AnotherRho 21:27, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Shadow Broker Page
Hi.

I was wondering about my edit for the shadow broker page and why it was reversed. All information added was relevent to the game, and as an enclycopedia, I don't see how we could ever have too much.

Also, why in this wikia do we never seem to provide direct quotes for interesting information? We provide codex entries word for word.

Thank you for taking the time to help.

Firstly please sign your posts. Secondly all comments the Shadow Broker makes regarding your selected squad member are already listed in the respective squad member's unique dialogue page.--Ironreaper 09:14, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) As was noted in the edit summary I provided when I undid the edit, all the quotes you added were more appropriate elsewhere. Per site policy (see Trivia Sections), dialogue is not trivia, nor should it be placed in trivia sections. Unique dialogue by, or about, squadmembers, belongs on the unique dialogue subpages for the individual squad members. And all the quotes are already listed there. For an example, see [[Morinth/Unique dialogue. I believe that should also answer your other question. We actually do record a great many quotes from the game, we just make sure and put them in the appropriate locations. SpartHawg948 09:16, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Apologise Spart. Wont happen again.--Ironreaper 09:24, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, I'm sorry that I missed the edit summary. Just figuring how things work around here. In the unique dialogue sections, though, we have lines like (from Legion's page)"If brought with Shepard to the Shadow Broker Base, the Shadow Broker will express his gratitude for bringing Legion, stating that Cerberus had greatly underestimated Legion's worth." rather than giving readers the actual quote: "Thank you for bringing me the geth, T'Soni. Cerberus undervalues its selling price.". Secondly, what if readers merely wanted to know how dialogue changed based on which squad members were brought along for a certain situation. It seems cruel to make readers go to each individual page and hunt down the various quotes hidden there. It would make sense to have all these quotes in one location, even if it means there is slight redundancy on the site.--Qrayx 19:46, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Ironreaper. It can just get frustrating when someone leaves a message, I get it pretty much right away, and spend all that time writing a long and detailed response, links and all, and then get edit conflicted on my own user talk page.

So... what it seems to me is that one of the main issues you have is that we don't feature the exact quote, and instead paraphrase it. Let me ask you this then: What difference does it make, really? What is different between the exact quote you provided for Legion, and the paraphrased version on Legion's UD page? What meaning is lost in the paraphrasing? Next, "cruel" seems extremely hyperbolic and unnecessary. I mean, really, is it necessary to say that we (the admins and editors of the site who implemented the policy) are willfully and knowingly inflicting pain or distress on others? That is what cruel means, after all. Site policy is what it is. I'd rather have the quotes dispersed onto the appropriate pages than plopped down in a big ugly heap at the bottom of one page, as a massive "wall of text", like it was when added to the Shadow Broker page. Now, if you disagree with the way dialogue is handled on the wiki, you are free to propose a change to site policy, which can be done by creating a new proposal in the policy forum. That way, the community can discuss it and vote on it based on its merits. SpartHawg948 20:31, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, I never knew there was a policy forum until I read this page. Apparently some significant changes have taken place in the last few weeks, as voted on by literally a handful of people. Glad I read this. - In my opinion, getting the "gist" of things on this site is superior to getting all the details. The latter could ruin something for potential players (or readers of the writings), which would be unfortunate. --AnotherRho 21:56, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

I did not mean to be insulting with my use of the word "cruel". It's difficult to covey tone across text discussions.

We have direct copies of various things from the game, including codex entries and dossiers (we don't paraphrase those), yet very few direct quotes. One possible argument for direct quotes is consistency. Also, with a direct quote comes a certain amount of certainty that the message has not been misrepresented in any way. Sometimes it's nice to know exactly what was said.

I do not feel that the way the text was formatted on the Shadow Broker page was a "big ugly heap" of text. I actually feel that it was rather neat and tidy, and easy to read.

We're an encyclopedia, and the notion of having too much information is baffling. Details are one thing we should be concerned about, and if we risk giving away plot, well, that's what we have those spoiler warnings for.

I will look into how the policy forum works, and consider my case. Thank you for taking the time to help me.--Qrayx 02:27, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing I noticed is that these quotes are not actually said by the characters to which they are referring. These are Shadow Broker quotes. I don't see a Shadow Broker UD page. Another thing is that the video archives are contained on a single page, and not spread out onto individual character pages.--Qrayx 02:44, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * However the video archives did not cover as much material as the Dossiers did, and as such it was better to list them all in one place rather than spreading them out over many articles. I'm not sure about the UD, considering it doesn't match the rest of the quotes. On the other hand, one could also argue that without said squad member, the Broker doens't say those lines. Because of that, one could say that because it isn't said without them, then it could go there. However this isn't the place to argue this. Lancer1289 02:51, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. In this case, the lines are unique dialogue for that squad member because the Shadow Broker only says the lines if that squad member is there. Hence it being unique to that squad member. As for information, I don't think anyone here has ever said that there is such a thing as "too much information". The fact that this idea was even brought up is what I find baffling, as I for one have never claimed there is such a thing as too much information, just that there is a proper place for that location. SpartHawg948 03:04, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * The "too much information" line was brought up in response to AnotherRho's comment. Should I be saving the rest of this debate for when I understand how the policy forum works, then?Qrayx 03:16, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'll admit, I initially only skimmed that comment. Upon further review though, it doesn't look to me like AnotherRho is arguing that there is such a thing as too much information, only that it's not always necessary to give every detail on every subject on every page. This to me seems perfectly in line with the argument for specialized pages such as unique dialogue pages. As for saving the rest, do what you want to do. I've seen people decide to stop talking about the issue until the policy discussion starts, and I've seen others keep arguing their positions on multiple pages before (and during) the policy discussion. There's no right or wrong way to do it. SpartHawg948 03:29, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Another thing that occurs to me is that the problem with exact quotes is that they do have to be exact. And they aren't always exact. For example, I noticed something on your "sandbox" bit about SB dialogue. Forgive me if I'm mistaken, I don't recall it ever being stated that Warlord Okeer is Irish. (Referring of course to your interpretation of Grunt's SB dialogue - ""Thank you for bringing me O'Keer's project, T'Soni. his dissection will be interesting.") SpartHawg948 04:13, September 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Alas, I've been reduced to that guy whose writings Spart merely skims. :( Or maybe "Spart" is short for "Spartan", i.e.... Laconic? (har har)
 * As for "too much info", I'll own what I said: merely that getting "all the details" could be unfortunate (i.e., it's possibly unfortunate, but not necessarily so in all cases). So, (A) my short response: Spart's estimate of my meaning is correct.  (B) Longer retort: giving and reading every detail is tedious and risks unnecessary spoilers; doing such on multiple pages is tedious and superfluous.  This Wiki avoids the Scylla and Charybdis of poverty and superfluity.  In the case under discussion, the Broker's unique lines are unique (so the wiki would be less in absence of the gist of those lines), and they are his. But they are relevant to each squadmate. If he had his own page, it would be divided according to character, one line for each. But we already have a Unique Dialogue category divided according to those characters. Therefore it would be somewhat superfluous to make a Broker UD page at all (also, he necessarily dies, if that's important). And to add all that dialogue again on a new page would be completely superfluous.  It is also more useful to do it as it is (any unique dialogue associated with squadmate X is on X's page). -*- As an aside, for the record, if anyone wants to write my name, they may write "Rho" as far as I'm concerned (since I'm just another Rho).  --AnotherRho 05:14, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Don't take skimming the wrong way... I skim most comments. Gets the job done quick, even if occasionally at the cost of detail. Hey, I was a federal inspector for a couple years, it's standard operating procedure! (I bet that makes all of you feel real safe!) :P SpartHawg948 07:21, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finding that typo (arn't wikis great?). I skipped that error when doing a spellcheck because it was a name, and I can't quite figure out why my brain put an apostrophy in there. As for the rest of the quotes, I have screenshots of the subtitles, and can verify that they are correct. The argument against having exact quotes could be used against having codex entries, dossiers, and messages. I still feel that, given the oppertunity, direct quotes are preferable to paraphrasing.
 * On a slightly related note, we could have a page, for example, "Unique Dialogue: Illium", which would include all unique dialogue said by squad members on Illium. I've actually already gone ahead and dismissed this idea for adding too many new, pointless pages. My next thought was a page along the lines of "Unique Dialoge: Locations", or something, in which there could be multiple sections (Illium, Omega, Shadow Broker, etc.). It would just be a single new page full of direct quotes to satisfy curious minds, such as my own. Perhaps not everyone sees the benefit of such a page, but I don't see how such a page could possibly be a detriment to this site. Qrayx 20:24, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... to me, anyways, that just smacks of redundancy, since all the lines of dialogue are already listed by character. I really don't see the need to list them again by location. To me this feels like (for example) detailing how to defeat the Shadow Broker both on the walkthrough page and on the Shadow Broker page. Or detailing how to defeat individual Mantis gunships on the applicable walkthrough pages and putting all the details for all of them on the A-61 Mantis Gunship page. And personally, I'm not a fan of redundancy. At least, that's how I see it. SpartHawg948 20:32, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see your point, but unless the UD pages of individual characters were changed to contain actual quotes, I'd argue that the information is not entirely redundant. Otherwise it seems it comes down to you saying that redundancy is not good, and me saying that redundancy is ok when organizing data in different ways. Let's say someone wanted to know all about Garrus' UD: we have a page for that. Let's say someone wanted to know all the UD for the Citadel: we could have a page for that. This would mostly be for convenience. This all being said, you're the admin. Qrayx 20:56, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

So... basically, you're arguing that it wouldn't be redundant if the pages contained the exact same info, just worded slightly differently. Because even though the lines on the UD pages aren't exact quotes, they still convey the exact same meaning as the exact quotes do. I must say, I fail to see the logic in your reasoning. SpartHawg948 20:59, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Why should we create another set of UD articles for the locations, in which we would list dialogue that can't be obtained without said squad member, and that is already on their UD page. I also fail to see the logic in creating articles with nothing more or less than redundant information. Lancer1289 21:01, September 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if one glances at some of the arguments I've made on Talk pages here (e.g., regarding Qrayx's attempted post on the Talk:M35 Mako page), one may discern that I at least tend to support convenience on this Wiki. But (as the same page indicates) not always, such as when it's superfluous or otherwise harmful.  Superfluity/redundancy harms "encyclopedias" by causing confusion and risking contradiction (not to mention unnecessary bulk). Just compare Wikipedia: stuffed with redundancy and contradictions.

(I hope it goes without saying that no one can argue with your intentions to improve the site) --AnotherRho 03:45, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi folks. Haven't been around much mostly due to classes. I'll concede that such pages would be redundant. I'll be thinking of ways to increase convenience without being redundant. I guess I'm still not convinced about actual quotes, though. Because we are not consistent on this wiki, any argument made against using direct quotes could be used against having direct copies of codex entries, dossiers, and messages. Were we to choose between having only direct quotes and paraphrases, I'd be in favor of quotes. I'd be more than willing to help out and verify quotes with screenshots of subtitles to ensure accuracy. Qrayx 22:21, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

No, no it wouldn't. You state that "any argument made against using direct quotes could be used against having direct copies of codex entries, dossiers, and messages." without offering a shred of evidence to back that claim. And note that never have I argued against using direct quotes, merely expressed an opinion that there is no need to remove perfectly adequate paraphrasing (which conveys the exact same context and meaning) with exact quotes. I did mention accuracy issues, as evidenced by a pretty glaring typo you yourself made when arguing for using direct quotes, but it must be pointed out that attempting to use that argument to make a case against verbatim copies of Codex entries, dossiers, and messages is, in a word, specious. Unlike quotes, which are spoken and are therefor prone to mistakes in translation (such as O'Keer), the Codices, dossiers, and messages are all in writing, thereby making errors in translation quick and easy to spot and correct. So no, "any argument made against using direct quotes" could not "be used against having direct copies of codex entries, dossiers, and messages." SpartHawg948 22:42, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

24.4.110.125
I just checked the Block log for the IP, and I discovered that it was Throwback after all. You initially blocked the IP indefinitely, but then DRY lowered it to two weeks a day later. Since Throwback was banned indefinitely, so I'm guessing that is why you did that. I have read over the conversations of what he did, and I have to say many things, but there is that language policy. I don't know if you checked it out, but I figured I'd share what I found. Lancer1289 02:02, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm still kind of pondering what to do. I was unaware until just recently that DRY altered the ban. Still not sure why. We'll wait and see... I kinda want to see the response. Either way, it's bad. Either the IP is Throwback, in which case it's just an attempt by a persona non grata to sleaze their way back onto the wiki, or it isn't Throwback and it's an anonymous user who has committed several other violations of site policy. SpartHawg948 02:16, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't see why it isn't Throwback, the arguments seem to be going the same way as it did with him. It took a while to read over some of those arguments. I'm also not sure either why DRY lowered the block, however he has broken several other site policies hasn't he. Personally I think we should wait and see what happens, but since you have dealt with him in the past, I'll leave this in your hands. Also you seem to be jumping in and out more frequently. School starting for you soon becuase Commdor will be off until the 24th becuase he just went back. Lancer1289 02:30, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, my classes start again tomorrow actually. So I may be on a little less, mainly on Tuesdays, but I'll still be around pretty frequently. SpartHawg948 03:05, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you taking, if you don't mind my asking? (also, can admins see IPs even of registered users?) --AnotherRho 03:07, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Well my classes began already back in August, but I'm at school all day on Tuesdays. However I also have my laptop so I can still keep in touch. I'm at school for 13 hours on Tuesdays, but that is elivated somewhat becuase I have a break where my teacher allows us to play games on those nice projectors in every room. Playing ME2, or any game for that matter, on a projector is awesome. Also it probably helps that said teacher is also the college's game design teacher, so she acutally doesn't mind as long as we don't break anything. We also had the college President drop in one day when this was happening spring semester and he tried to play Halo 3: ODST. That didn't turn out well for him anyway but we all got a laugh out of it, and so did he. Lancer1289 03:12, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also no, admins can't see the IPs of users, only the staff can do that. However Throwback used the IP before on talk pages, and then did the whole log in and resign thing. So we know it's him as he did that several times with that IP. Lancer1289 03:12, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

What am I taking? Hmmm... let's have a looksee... U.S. History 1900-present, Environmental Health and Justice, Intro to Environmental Law, Intro to Environmental Careers, and AB 32 - California Global Warming Solutions (which is a class looking at California State Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act, aka AB 32). SpartHawg948 03:15, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds interesting; heavy on the law and environment; kind of reminds of nature vs. nomos... though, probably not going to be the same. Nevertheless, quite nice.  Lancer... you must go to an interesting school.  Sounds like a fun time indeed. (thanks for the replies) --AnotherRho 04:02, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * The college I go to is linked to its Wikipeida article on my user page, and it is great there. But now I'm really sad and angry becuase my 360 just caught the RRoD syndrome. Lancer1289 04:12, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I see... actually, I don't see. "The human is lost", or rather, explain the syndrome for us non-Xboxers, please? --AnotherRho 05:17, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well we can't have that can we. RRoD stands for Red Ring of Death, it's similar to the Blue Screen of Death on a PC but the RRoD can't usually be fixed as easily as the BSoD can. This article should explain everything that you need. Either way, I won't have access to my 360 for about 2-3 weeks. Lancer1289 12:31, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, that's lame. "A second source cited that, at one time, there was just a 32% yield of one of the test production runs. 68 of every 100 test units were found to be defective."  Mega lame. -  What will you do?  On the other hand... just think of all the spare time you'll have to study and review class notes now.  --AnotherRho 03:48, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Also, Lancer, I've been meaning to say this for a while now, but I'm pretty sure my school beats yours for the title of "Best Community College in the United States". (I know, this is a subjective argument, but mine is better, darn it!) Definitely one, and possibly two (depending on who you believe) of the founders of Apple went there, after all. Plus Teri Hatcher from Desperate Housewives! :P It's also home to the very first Community College building to receive a LEED Platinum rating (the top certification), the Kirsch Center, where I actually take most of my classes. Btw, the aforementioned 'awesome school' (in case the prior link wasn't a big enough hint) would be De Anza College. Again, this is all silly and subjective, but if we can't have a bit of "My school is better than yours! :P", then what fun is there in any of this? SpartHawg948 07:40, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

CDN
How canon are CDN reports anyway? AnotherRho 02:40, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * As canon as anything else that appears in the game, unless you know something I don't. SpartHawg948 04:31, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, just wondering if you knew something unique about it. AnotherRho 04:40, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I'm pretty much working off the same sources as everybody else. Less sources than some, actually, since I hate the official forums. I literally have no inside scoops or access to sources anyone else can't also access. SpartHawg948 04:45, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler Tag Questions
Spart please do correct me if I'm wrong, but since the Mass Effect Morality Guide and the Morality Guide (Mass Effect 2) are classified as guides, i.e. walkthroughs, they don't require spoiler tags because spoilers are expected. Also is the Spoiler tag on the No One Left Behind Achievement Guide also necessary because we don't have the tags on the achievement guides for ME? Well we have one on the Completionist Achievement Guide and we did have one on the Party Member Achievement Guide, but I removed that, maybe a bit prematurely. Since the guides are like walkthroughs, and walkthroughs don't have spoiler tags, then they shouldn't have them either. Please do correct me if I'm confused on this matter. Lancer1289 14:42, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the harm in having a spoiler tag at the top of the page for guides and walkthroughs. I agree that, if someone is on those pages, they probably already know what to expect, but really, what does it hurt? And given that some of the main ones (such as the Mass Effect Guide and Mass Effect 2 Guide) also have spoiler tags, I don't see the point in removing the tags from some of them now, while leaving them on others. SpartHawg948 18:07, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * So just leave them there then, got it. Lancer1289 18:16, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Aria Trivia
Spart, I don't know if you have come to a decision, but I personally fell that the Trivia on the Aria page should be removed as it is based solely on speculation. Also the conversation on the Talk:Matriarch Aethyta page is heating up again. Lancer1289 20:20, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever. It's speculation, no hard proof. Remove it. We do need to be consistent. As for the Matriarch Aethyta page, I could care less. It's the same old crap, and they know it, which is why people like this NickTyrong character have to resort to specious reasoning and pathetic attacks on the opinions of others. If they had something new and conclusive, they'd present it. But they don't. So they argue the same nonsense over and over again. "It's not speculation because I say it isn't! Your opinions are wrong and your doubts are unreasonable!" 'Well, can you present concrete proof?' "No, but I don't need to because I'm right and you are wrong!" SpartHawg948 21:50, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll remove the trivia then.
 * As to Aethyta's page, it is really getting annoying isn't it. I hate when people use the "I'm right and your wrong just because I say so" argument. That never goes anywhere and as we've seen in the past, and now with this, it gets really old and really annoying quickly. Lancer1289 21:53, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Please pardon my intrusion (of course, it's a public page, but you know...). To be honest guys, not everyone argues as you say.  And to counter speculation, more speculation is required (e.g., giving alternate possibilities as to why so-and-so says or does this); whereas some conjecture can be based on numerous coincidences (or the like).  But besides, there is a low tolerance on speculation, not a zero tolerance.  That said, please do not misconstrue this to defend anything regarding guesses about Aethyta.  My thoughts were already stated on that page.  I have a different view of Aria (the number of factual coincidences is large).  Although I think "consistency" should not trump policy, yet your word is law.  Or no?
 * That aside, wouldn't it be nice if we could have sufficient evidence regarding that "K. Rebellions of 749" thing? Because then we would have a start date to the turians involvement in the war (this is actually why I came to the talk page).  --AnotherRho 22:12, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not everyone argues that way, but some do, which is why I was specific with who was being referenced. And as for countering speculation, no speculation whatsoever is required. A simply fact, i.e. It isn't stated anywhere as fact, is all that's required. What I believe you are referring to is the use of speculation to provide alternative reasons why something could appear in-game, which I have done from time to time to disprove people's assertions that "There is no other reason besides the one I'm proposing that this would be in the game". Absolutely no speculation is required in my speculation-countering policy. SpartHawg948 22:21, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops; yes, I wasn't clear that I know about whom you were speaking, and on reflection it was rather silly to say anything. But still, I assume that in your view the date of 749 is yet too unclear to put in the timeline (or Rebellions page)?  It is (not well-enough attested) in my view, but collaboration is Wikia's middle name.  --AnotherRho 23:00, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

You don't want to hear anything I want to say to you right now, so I'll keep quiet. SpartHawg948 23:01, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I saw that my speech was so misleading as to cause displeasure, and likely to transfer another's sting to me. When you feel more at peace, please accept my defense that I didn't intend to do so (rather, to point out that the mentioned ultimatum was unnecessary and hurtfully made); and I hope you find it in your heart or mind to forgive me this mix-up.  Adieu.  --AnotherRho 23:13, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Idiomatically, sticking to your guns is defined as "to refuse to change your ideas although other people try to make you change them"> This is the generally accepted interpretation of it. Stating that I did not "stick to my guns" implies that I OK'd the removal of the Aria stuff solely because of external pressure from NickTyrong, as if I had stuck to my guns, I would have let it stay. This was made clear when you stated that it was regrettable that NickTyrong forced an ultimatum.

Stating that my OK-ing the removal was me not sticking to my guns implies that you know the thought processes that went on in my head and led me to reverse a prior decision to keep the info. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Here's a secret- I hadn't even read NickTyrong's little ultimatum before I agreed with Lancer's query about removing the info. My decision was based solely on the fact that my two decisions seemed contradictory, and that simply removing the speculation from both pages seemed like the decision most consistent with the letter and spirit of site policy. As such, I cannot tell you how much I resent the implication that, by supposedly not sticking to my guns, I "knuckled under" and removed valid information simply because of some barely legible, rude, and facetious ultimatum from another user. That's why I was so displeased. If you didn't intend offense, you really shouldn't have chosen such a loaded phrase. SpartHawg948 23:20, September 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for stating the meaning of the phrase. In this case, I used the phrase to mean exactly what you said, with this peculiarity: the "guns" was the site policy of "low tolerance (not zero)" (as you yourself referenced in March). So one allowance is not cause for the accusation that was leveled, or in other words, different decisions do not always indicate contradictory decisions (in my view anyway).
 * I'm sorry you feel resentment, but I understand. You are right: I don't know your thoughts except when they are expressed; that expression includes past writing and action.  That is why I cited both the talk page section, and the relevant page history (i.e., an action performed by you).  Please at least know that neither I nor any other human being could know any other private thoughts until you divulged them.  All this is why I said (and I mean) that if I caused you resentment or anger, I did so unwillingly.  --AnotherRho 23:32, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

The thing there though is that the site policies are not my guns (nor are they really my guns either. My guns would be my opinions and interpretations of policy, not the written policy itself), and as such, the phrase didn't really read as you apparently intended it to. And I do realize that I didn't express my reasoning fully, as at the time, in a conversation solely between two individuals who had discussed it before, there was no need to. However, I don't recall any attempts by you (or anyone else) to discern what my reasoning was before you stated your assumption that my decision was based on NickTyrong's ultimatum (expressed as follows "Well, it's unfortunate that yout (NT) made an ultimatum, comparing a few minor coincidences (admittedly including the larger coincidence of the photo) with the long list of them in Aria's case, resulting in the removal of the latter. It's almost a shame that that tactic worked to get them removed", followed of course by the offending turn of phrase). If you had simply asked why I made the decision I did, I would have gladly explained it. Instead, you assumed that it was based on an ultimatum issued by another user, when nothing could have been further from the truth. If you want to know my reasoning, ask! Don't just assume you know what it is. SpartHawg948 23:42, September 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * You speak justly. I shall attempt to refrain from assuming I know your reasoning, except when you show it.  In the spirit of amicability, or equity, I ask for the same: "I don't recall any attempts by you (or anyone else) to discern what my reasoning was before you stated etc."  I likewise don't recall you asking me anything at all before regarding me with enmity.  In the last analysis, accusations were made and concerns were expressed of one or another contradicting themselves, except that I said your speech and deed were in harmony in the past (which I tried to show I had investigated), and speech & deed were in harmony in the present.
 * Onto other matters: since we were involved in this discussion together, my question is whether you think that the turians entering the Krogan Rebellions in 749 is not well-enough established to warrant mention either on the KR page or the timeline? (to repeat, in my view, it is not well-enough established; thoughts?) It would be nice to have some specifics on the turian involvement.  --AnotherRho 01:36, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. In my defense though, I merely took your comment at face value. Nothing was assumed about its meaning or intent, I merely took what was in front of me and used the common meaning and definition of the phrase to form my opinion. That, combined with the fact that you attributed my change in opinion to bowing to the external pressure of the ultimatum when this was not the case, was what caused me to become agitated.

Now, my answer is no. Just as we have no confirmation that the Krogan Rebellions began in 749, we also have no confirmation that the turians entered into the conflict in 749. It's true that, unlike the former, there is nothing canonical contradicting the latter, but there is still no concrete confirmation. SpartHawg948 03:09, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Word. AnotherRho 03:43, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Banned?
Considering that I haven't done anything besides post a comment in a Talk page about Yeoman Kelly, I would like to know why I was banned from this Wiki. My Username is Lovelyb0nes, and I'm almost exclusively active on the Mass Effect Fanon Wiki. Why did you ban me for "harassment/inappropriate behavior" or at least I think that's what the blog page I looked at said. 76.31.253.66 11:25, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, never mind. For some reason, I had to re-log in to my account. It doesn't look like I'm banned now. Lovelyb0nes 11:29, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well. That was... odd. It's always nice if people do this sort of research before leaving me accusatory messages. SpartHawg948 18:21, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Category for pages needing updates for the new skin
Regardless of everyone's opinion of the new skin, I think it would be prudent to prepare for it. To that end, I want to make a project page that will encompass all changes that will be required to accommodate it, including a new category (say... "Articles needing updates for the new skin"). Before I make said page and category, I was hoping to get your opinion on the matter and any suggestions for what should/should not be included. Thanks! -- Dammej ( talk ) 20:09, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * My only suggestion (more of a demand, really) is that none of these changes actually be made until we know more for sure. I'm still hoping we can avoid this pointless nonsense, so I really think any changes right now in preparation for something that might not even happen would be imprudent. SpartHawg948 20:11, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand. I think that, if the goal is to ask (or demand, if you prefer) to remain on Monaco, there should probably be a separate policy or project forum post created where actual community opinion can be collected. (I think it's pretty clear where most opinion lies, but still.) -- Dammej ( talk ) 20:23, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, sounds good. Maybe a project page. Who knows, maybe we could work up some kind of nice-sounding petition or something. SpartHawg948 20:25, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe just maybe. I'm also hopeful that we don't have to switch, but keeping track of articles that could cause problems probably isn't a bad idea. We'll just have to wait and see what happends. Lancer1289 21:30, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Curious: Do you think that we can start making the changes to pages that will be required for the new skin (now that a timeline has been revealed, I mean), or should we wait until the October 6th date, when people can actually begin using the new skin? -- Dammej ( talk ) 23:16, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should wait until we actually need to make the changes. I don't see any reason to make the changes now, when it will throw off the visuals using the current system. SpartHawg948 23:19, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. We'll have to plan it so that every change that will be needed has been completed before the 20th, though. That's the date that all users will see the new skin by default. Do you think all changes should just be implemented immediately prior to this date, then? -- Dammej ( talk ) 23:22, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's my thinking. Call me an optimist, but I'm still hoping that Wikia will start giving a damn (pardon the language) about what its users think. SpartHawg948 23:24, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * You certainly have a more optimistic outlook than I: The reveal of the timeline was the 'point of no return' for me. About the only change I've seen to the skin from the start of the public beta was a very tiny reduction in the height of the "wikia" banner at the top... -- Dammej ( talk ) 23:38, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * And me as well. Personally I don't think Wikia is going to change a thing, despite many users complaining. Personally I am still holding out some hope that they will do something, but at the same time, I don't think they will. Lancer1289 23:40, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably not, but still it will be wise to wait and see what the skin looks like when they implement it on this wiki.
 * We also need some planning and not let each user decide what changes are acceptable. I think that creating a discussion on the talk page of relevant articles and discussing what change the particular article needs is a much smarter choice.
 * We will also need to style the new skin to our liking. A separate discussion in the forums will be helpful to reach a consensus. --silverstrike 01:38, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Morale Boost
Do you know what this ability is (or whether it is real)? It's listed as belonging to several enemies. -)AnotherRho 17:24, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * No idea. SpartHawg948 19:18, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I don't know where it came from either. I think it should be removed unless we can find a reference for it somewhere. Lancer1289 20:06, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

Wikia move
Just out of curiosity, what will you guys do when wikia makes it's skin change? The Yoshiman 97 20:10, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Adapt. Try to figure how to make the best out of a bad situation. In my opinion, Moving is not an option (not a good one, at any rate). --silverstrike 20:54, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes we would lose much more than we would gain from moving. I don't know what Spart will say, but I say that we must be like the Borg, adapt to the new situation. Sorry Silverstike, couldn't resist. Lancer1289 21:01, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

No way! We're going to adapt, but we aren't going to be all lame and piecemeal about it like the Borg. Those guys are the most overrated sci-fi hacks in the history of ever. SpartHawg948 21:12, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Every time I try to make a joke, somehow I always mess it up. I guess I still need to work at that. Lancer1289 21:18, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

I just don't want to be compared to these sci-fi losers who can supposedly adapt to anything... except bullets. And knives. And claws. And blunt force trauma. And even standard weapons they've supposedly adapted to already. Also, I like to think our decision making abilities are decidedly better than those of the Borg, who sit around for hours trying to decide what to do, while allowing other people to just board their ships and wander around. Seriously, I've never gotten the hype surrounding the Borg. SpartHawg948 21:22, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, bad joke on my part. Lancer1289 21:23, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Eden Prime Final Bonb
Wow, no one just seems to like that page do they? I mean it has been vandalized seven times in the last week, and ever since July all of the edits are vandalsim, with only one edit being productive. I'm not suggesting locking the page, however I don't think I've seen something this before, and I'm curious if you have. Lancer1289 02:37, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that I can recall. I was actually thinking of partially protecting it yesterday, got it all set up, then changed my mind at the last minute and hit back instead of 'Confirm'. These guys are more an annoyance than anything else. It takes them much longer to vandalize it than it does for someone to undo it. SpartHawg948 02:40, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does. Well at least we can look at them and get a laugh out of them. I have to say, some are quite funny. Lancer1289 02:41, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

New Skin Theme
I just wanted to clear it with you first, but since JoePlay did respond to my question, a bit quicker than I thought I admit, but using the instructions he provided, I can modify the new theme to match our current one a lot closer. This will line up with the current colors we have in terms of the color of the text, backgrounds, and buttons. Also I can use the Themedesigner to modfiy the background to match the one we use currently, until a new decision is reached. I just wanted to clear this with you first, since I know you said you aren't good at this kind of stuff. Or at least that is what I think you said, please correct if wrong. I'm no fan of this new skin, but I have to say, it might acutally look somewhat decent once the changes are implmented. Lancer1289 19:30, October 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * The sooner we get rid of the blinding whiteness, the better. I go away for four hours for classes, and Wikia would make the change while I'm gone. -- Commdor (Talk) 19:34, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. SpartHawg948 19:36, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I've made the changes, and used the current background until a new one can be decided on. This looks much better IMO. Still don't like the new skin, but let's at least try to make the best of a bad situaion. I say hold off on modding the sidebar until we have that more nailed down. But that's me. Lancer1289 19:41, October 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Just noticed, everything suddenly popped into place. Are we still working on getting the text color back to white? It's currently gray for me. -- Commdor (Talk) 19:42, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * OK Made a mistake when copying the information and accidently copied the page background color into the button one. Now thos should be more clear. As to the text, I can't do anything about that, but I'll ask just in case. Also since we need a new wordmark, we can't use the current Wiki image anymore, I was thinking of asking JoePlay to make a new one. I was thinking one that looks like the Mass Effect on the main page, see this if unclear, and just adding the Wiki to that, but this probably would be temporary until we can come up with something new. Lancer1289 19:51, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing for the wordmark. Anywho, so far this isn't all that bad. I'm finding that the biggest inconvenience (at least, for me) is the lack of a dedicated button that goes straight to Recent Changes; as is, I have to click on Wiki Activity, then some "see more" link. Hopefully we can resolve this in the days ahead. -- Commdor (Talk) 19:57, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Why wouldn't it work? The text color could be manually changed through the global stylesheet page.
 * I actually made a few changes like creating a link to the recent changes and got rid of that pesky sidebar, so pages content look much better now. --silverstrike 20:02, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Try this image for the graphic wordmark. 20:06, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I already asked JoePlay to make another, but this can come to a vote, and it probably should, I'll start up a new projects forum for it. Also so we can reduce the amount of messages Spart is getting. Lancer1289 20:09, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh... so much for keeping images off my talk page... SpartHawg948 20:29, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of anything mentioned about wanting your talk page free of images prior to your new note above. Anyone would have missed it. Anyway, it is removed it as requested. — Teugene (Talk) 21:16, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my last request is in my most recent archive, from about a month and a half ago. Still, it's always nice to be consulted before an image is added as part of a conversation on my talk page that really doesn't involve me at all. Of course, it'd be even better if said conversation never happened on my talk page to begin with... In an aside, this is why, before I do anything other than simply add text to someone's talk page, I ask first if they're cool with it. SpartHawg948 21:21, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Er... My bad
Whoops. I didn't know there was a British spelling for the word "defense". You learn something every day, eh? Arbington 01:18, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. No worries. The real issue was that, as defence/defences is used twice in the Skyllian Blitz article (as later on the article notes that a War Hero Shepard "held off enemy troops during a breach in the defences"), changing one but not the other threw off the consistency of the article. But there was no harm done. SpartHawg948 01:21, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just letting you know I wasn't intentionally breaking the rules or anything. I simply was unaware of the defence/defense difference. Arbington 01:46, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Which you made abundantly clear in the first message. SpartHawg948 01:50, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. Yeah. Need to work on my redundancy too. Heh. Arbington 02:01, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Yahg category necessity
You mentioned in Category talk:Soundtracks that Category:Yahg exists out of necessity. What did you mean by this? Genuinely curious. -- Dammej ( talk ) 23:44, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant exactly what I said. It's an in-universe topic. Specifically, a category for a race which appears in one of the games. As such, the category is pretty much necessary. Same as other race categories without much in them, like Category:Drell and Category:Rachni. SpartHawg948 23:48, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. A follow-up then: The Reapers category was deleted in May, does the same logic not apply to them? (We have, afterall, fought a Reaper in at least one game now). -- Dammej ( talk ) 23:51, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why was it deleted? I admit, the same logic should apply, but I don't really have all the info here, do I can't really make an informed decision. SpartHawg948 23:52, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have about the same information as you do (very little). The delete message suggests that it was just 'lack of Reapers', though:

"16:36, May 23, 2010 SpartHawg948 (Talk"
 * -- Dammej ( talk ) 23:58, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's more info than I had, actually. I'd figured that, since you were inquiring, you had the relevant info at hand, whereas, with no professed interest in the situation, I do not. Hmmm... this would appear to be one of those instances of poor judgment on my part... hate when that happens. SpartHawg948 00:02, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Very well. Assuming no objections, I'll recreate the category, then. -- Dammej ( talk ) 00:07, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * None from me. SpartHawg948 00:09, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Hi, is possible to translate pages in italian that are already uploaded here in english? 'Cause what I want to do isn't just add new articles but translate without altering codes, links and stuff from the original version. Is possible do that?
 * Hmmm... I'm not 100% sure what you are asking, so here's what I'm going to say. If you are asking about translating the pages we have (which are in English) into Italian and posting them to this wiki, my answer is no. Absolutely not. This is the English-language Mass Effect Wiki. If you want an Italian language wiki, you'll need to start one, similar to the German, French, Hungarian, and Russian-language Mass Effect Wikis. If, however, you want to copy and translate our articles so you can add them to an Italian Mass Effect Wiki, then be my guest. I would be fine with that. Hope this answer helps. SpartHawg948 05:10, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

If we assume that it is right to interpret Shepard's date of birth as April 11, 2154. then that means his/her astrological attributes would be:

Western: Aries-aspected Asian: Horse-aspected Mayan: Blue Planetary Night Aspected

--88 49 05:02, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok... and? We can't add anything of the sort to the article, as you yourself admit it's based on an assumption, and I never asked about it, so I'm not sure why you posted the info here... SpartHawg948 05:10, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

International Law request
(Regarding the discussion on the Shepard page). Well said, there. Spart, I know you're in school (etc.) now, so off-hand, do you have any specific references regarding this (namely, the moment of surrender)? Whether in a book or treaty; this subject is quite interesting. Thanks in any event. --AnotherRho 16:59, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as to the moment of surrender, really all that it says (taken here from Section II, Chapter I, Article 23 of the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, entitled "The Laws and Customs of War on Land"), is that to receive protection under international law, an enemy has to have either laid down their arms, or must no longer have means of defense. If this is the case, killing or wounding said enemy is unlawful. As for what rights unlawful combatants have, since they are not members of national military forces or militia/volunteer forces, they are subject to Article IV of the Geneva Conventions, which covers the treatment of Civilians. Article IV states that persons falling under its auspices must be treated humanely, but it does specify that they may be prosecuted under the domestic laws of the state which has detained them. In this case, for example, if it is illegal for law enforcement personnel to shoot and kill a suspect who has surrendered, it is similarly illegal for soldiers to shoot and kill a surrendering enemy combatant. (see the International Committee of the Red Cross' site on the relevance of International Humanitarian Law here.)
 * In addition, article 45, subsection 3 of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions states that any person who has taken part in hostilities but is not entitled to PoW status (i.e. enemy/unlawful combatants), and who for some reason is not entitled to protection under Article IV, is protected by Article 75 of the Protocol, which among other things prohibits their being murdered. (Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, containing the aforementioned Articles 45 and 75, can be found here.)
 * In addition, for all we know, the batarians killed on Torfan weren't enemy combatants. In order to qualify for PoW status without being a member of a national armed force, one has to fulfill four requirements, which qualifies them as a member of a militia or volunteer corps. 1) There needs to be a command structure, with one person in overall command, and therefor responsible for their subordinates. 2) Have a fixed and distinctive (i.e. recognizable) sign or insignia that can be recognized at a distance. 3) Carry their arms openly. 4) Be conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Now, as they are described as "criminals", the batarians likely were enemy combatants, but even then, as shown, they should be afforded protection once they have made clear their intent to surrender. Way back when, it could be claimed that this only applied to signatories of the Hague and Geneva Conventions, but as Lancer has pointed out elsewhere, the UN has rendered that argument moot by releasing a declaration in 1993 stating that, as these conventions have entered common usage in international law, they can now be considered binding even for non-signatories. And, obviously, observance of these laws is madated by most national military laws (such as the US's Uniform Code of Military Justice). The case can certainly be made that these have been deemed to not apply to aliens, or to "rogue" races like the batarians, but given the clear descent of much of the Alliance military's practices and procedures from current military standards, I personally don't believe this to be the case. And it is certainly the case that, by today's standards, Shepard killing surrendering batarians on Torfan was murder, and was a war crime under international law. SpartHawg948 21:32, October 10, 2010 (UTC)